TheRPGSite

Are Plot Point campaigns the best of both worlds? Does it provide the story without the railroading? Does it give the freedom without being a collection of random events? Would you consider using location based plot points or time based plot points? Or a combination of the two? Do you use triggered side quest and are they also time based of location based?

What's a plot point campaign?

Although the fact that the word "plot" is part of the name means that I already hate it even though I don't know what it is.

Or the worst of both worlds, with less freedom than your pure imagination and more effort than a more usual prewritten campaign.

Or just a different approach to campaign which you may like, y'know YMMV and all that ;)

A plot point campaign is a thing done for Savage World settings a lot that works like this.

There are a bunch of "set" adventures, dependent on time and location, and whether or not you've finished other adventures, and how they worked out.

It may have a central "plot" but the players don't really HAVE to interact with it, and can go in any direction they really wish. What adventures trigger will depend on where they go and what has happened up to that point.

You can usually draw them up in a flow chart. For instance the Sundered Skies one has a neat chart someone made for it that looks like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/FCZJHDH.png)

Its kind of a middle step between a plotted campaign and a sandbox. Like a directed sandbox. The adventures usually aren't too in depth, just giving general ideas of how they work rather than being broken down into every little scene, and there is a lot of room for GM improv and player creativity. And certain ones may link into a coherent story, but a lot are also optional and stuff.

I personally like them, but can see where other people might not.

Okay, so what's the difference between that and "a bunch of independent adventures"?

Its just a bit more structured. A lot of adventures are dependent on something happening earlier for instance (did you save that duke, oh, well he wants you to do X now), and as with the one above there can be a "core story" that the campaign is about (the gold ones are the core adventures in the image above).

Of course, if ran properly, the characters don't even have to go in that direction unless they want to.

I like them because it gives a lot of ideas and directions to go, without leaving a GM, especially a beginning GM, totally in the wind. It encourages GMs not to railroad, but still gives you a bit of some tracks to follow if the players want.

While I've largely converted to Savage Worlds as my go-to system, I'd prefer the pages with plot points have been devoted to something else.  I don't find them useful, and I'd prefer they be in their own books, not in rules or setting books.  I can nonetheless see some merit to them as something for folks who like pre-made content.

Looks a bit like brainstorming around a sandbox. Put things into a setting and where they might lead.

At their best, the Plot Point Campaign approach builds a central epic story in to a sandbox campaign, and so is a good GM resource supporting a range of styles (assuming, of course, that you're the kind of GM who uses published adventures).

The two fail states for the PPC approach seem to be either that the central PPC is too strong and it becomes a railroad, or it's too weak, and the players become unable to actively pursue the main story even if they want to.

I'm also in hindsight tempted to say that the provided material for Solomon Kane isn't even a functional sandbox. The PPC requires you to literally travel the entire planet, which with 17C technology means the PCs need to be pretty focused on where they're going, so following up local rumours/events ends up being incompatible with pursuing the main plot at all, once you leave Europe and Africa.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;737580A plot point campaign is a thing done for Savage World settings a lot that works like this.

There are a bunch of "set" adventures, dependent on time and location, and whether or not you've finished other adventures, and how they worked out.

Sounds similar to the campaign advice Marc Miller gives for Traveller. The Traveller Adventure is setup similarly.

The problem I see is that the tendency is still there for the referee to guide the players to the prepared content in a railroad.

It even happens to me at times when I incorporate prepared adventures.

If referee really wants to break himself away from the problems of railroading then what needs to happen is the following.

1) Define locales not adventures. The difference is that the adventure focuses on a specific moment in a specific place. A locale description is within reason timeless. A description of a place that is true for say that year. For example Lord Henderson Manor has a hall, bedroom, workshop and kitchen. The hall has a description of contents, the bedroom has a description, and the kitchen has a description of contents. There is a list of stated NPCs including Lord Henderson. Finally the text notes that on a typical day Lord Henderson is in bed two hours after sunset and up by sunrise. That he conducts business in the hall for two hours centered around noon and then spend the rest of the day hunting or visiting outlying fields.

2) Make a list of NPCs their motivations, stats, and their plans.

3) Finally make a timeline of what will occur in the absence of the PCs. AVOID OVERLY DETAILING THIS. The timeline is like a plan of battle in that it is what you start with. But as the PCs act as their character it will change in response to their action. The changes being decided on the basis of the NPCs motivations and personal plans. You update this after every session.

This is the only type of prep I found that breaks my campaigns from the shackles of the railroad. Otherwise the dramatic difference in the ease of use of prepared adventures, either your own or purchases, dominates.

I can see a chart like that as useful to recall details, but I would not want the chart to become a railroad.

And for the love of all that is Holy...a Player should never see a chart like that :)

Currently running something similar, but open (or perhaps better, "undefined") around the edges. Basically there's stuff already seeded in the world, with major NPCs and their own agendas having their own sphere, yet wherever PCs go there's where new quest hooks write themselves. I guess mine holds just as much overlap, but I am actively avoiding the term "plot point."

Basically I run contemporary quests with additional quest generation opening up during play, just hot-keyed for players as a meta-convenience to select where they want me to prep next. But PPC is considerably shorter, if perhaps inexact, jargon... tempting.
:pundit:

Quote from: Emperor Norton;737580A plot point campaign is a thing done for Savage World settings a lot that works like this.

It looks like a Bethesda game to me.  A relatively short central plot, and a crapload of optional stuff.

I'd be willing to check one out, but it still seems to have the major issue that the end is scripted before you've even started the beginning.

Or, to put it another way, the Mass Effect 3 problem - yeah, you can make a lot of decisions, but in the end, *they won't really matter*.  The ending is already set, and can't possibly take all of the decisions along the way into account.

Again, I haven't played one, and so I'm going based on my initial impressions which may be incorrect.  But based on what I see here, it *doesn't* take the best of both worlds.  The best of the "nonscripted" model is the ability for players to take the game in *completely* unexpected directions.  Per the diagram, this essentially trades a novel for a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book.

To be fair, ME3 was a terrible ending that sours a lot of people to almost the entire series to this day. It's like a -500 modifier in the d20 system or something.
:p

Quote from: estar;737663Sounds similar to the campaign advice Marc Miller gives for Traveller. The Traveller Adventure is setup similarly.

It is. It became the Cinematic Nugget system in Megatraveller.

It works well to provide some structure to a sandbox, but GMs still have to be able to respond to where the Players lead the campaign when they do things that have not been prepared for.

I haven't run a plot-point campaign, but I do have the Savage World of Solomon Kane. I agree that it's an attractive compromise between scripted story and complete sandbox. An even better example is Ancient Kingdoms: Mesopotamia. It's a very evocative and well-drawn setting book, with locations ranging from lairs to an entire forgotten city, along with factions, backstory, schemes, and side-adventures. There is no set script of events, but there is a suggested sequence of locations/encounters that would make up an epic campaign.

I really wish more RPG publishers would experiment with these sorts of hybrids, rather than the status quo where 80 per cent of books are straight railroads and 20 per cent are straight sandboxes.

Quote from: jeff37923;737711It is. It became the Cinematic Nugget system in Megatraveller.

It works well to provide some structure to a sandbox, but GMs still have to be able to respond to where the Players lead the campaign when they do things that have not been prepared for.

I think I like Cinematic Nugget better as a term. Though it is likely copyrighted, so I'll have to keep looking.

What to call an Adventure Flowchart filled with multiple discrete adventures where new ones can be appended? Spaghetti Campaign? Shit in the Sandbox? Or what?

Quote from: Bill;737670I can see a chart like that as useful to recall details, but I would not want the chart to become a railroad.

And for the love of all that is Holy...a Player should never see a chart like that :)

Aha, yeah, that is definitely a GM resource.

I think the best plot point campaign I've seen is the one from 50 Fathoms. Which also includes a lot of random oceangoing encounters based on where you are in the world and such. If anyone wanted to check out the Plot Point idea, I would say that one is the "ideal" plot point campaign.

Quote from: Opaopajr;737752I think I like Cinematic Nugget better as a term. Though it is likely copyrighted, so I'll have to keep looking.

What to call an Adventure Flowchart filled with multiple discrete adventures where new ones can be appended? Spaghetti Campaign? Shit in the Sandbox? Or what?

Not a sandbox?

Again, to use ME as an example, Sovereign's going to attack the Citadel.  There's nothing you can do to stop it.  It's a scripted event, it's gonna happen.  There is no sequence of events that you can engage in as a player to prevent that from happening.  Period.

Beyond that, there's no way to convince the Council of the danger.  There's no way to do an end-run around the Council and get the military prepped.  There is literally nothing the player can do in any way to change any single aspect of Sovereign's attack.

In a "sandbox", once the first encounter that would lead to Sovereign occurs (the intro mission in ME), then it should certainly be possible for players to do something to prevent Sovereign from ever attacking the Citadel, in some theoretic way.  And even if not, then the circumstances of the assault (how prepped the counterforces are, possible pre-attack evacuations, etc. etc.) should be theoretically possible.

That's why (from what I've seen) Plot Point adventures aren't really a "midpoint".  They're Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books rather than novels.

Which don't mean that they're *bad*, per se.  Just that they're not sandboxes.

A game I ran recently had some mythos-like creatures infest a number of humans in the town.  I didn't know how things would go - would the infested be captured/killed?  Would the PCs get infested?  Would the town end up completely falling under the influence of the 'creatures'?  Would it start a spread throughout the world?  Would the PCs defeat the infestation and start getting ideas on who was behind it?

I had no idea how things would finally turn out.  That's what I call a "sandbox".

Quote from: Opaopajr;737707To be fair, ME3 was a terrible ending that sours a lot of people to almost the entire series to this day. It's like a -500 modifier in the d20 system or something.
:p

I see three issues with the ME3 ending:

1) They promised that your choices would matter.  In the end, all that they impacted is how easy it was to unlock the "best" ending.  This is kind of inherent in CRPGs, though, as the combinatorial complexity of all the possible options makes accounting for them effectively impossible.

2) It was handled fucking poorly, especially with the ending mostly being a palette swap of the others.  They should have invested more into the endings to make it clear, at least after the fact, what the actual impact of your decisions were.

3) The ending was a proper finale for the *themes* of the series, not the *events* of the series.  Mass Effect was About Racism and Culture (caps deliberate).  The overarching theme of the whole damn thing was how to get different cultures to play together.  The Council represents the "everyone in hteir bubbles" view, the Reapers present the historic American view of "come here and assimilate", and the final "Synthesis" (aka, "good") ending is the left-liberal view of mutual assimilation.  The problem (combined with the first two points) is that most people don't watch for themes and the like, and want to resolve the fucking plot, not the fucking themes - and especially not with a very biased, kinda hamhanded preaching of what the authors clearly felt the "right" answer was.

Quote from: Opaopajr;737752What to call an Adventure Flowchart filled with multiple discrete adventures where new ones can be appended? Spaghetti Campaign? Shit in the Sandbox? Or what?

How about, "sandbox"?

My sandbox world is full of discrete adventures.  What makes it a sandbox is

1) the players are not required to engage with any given adventure
2) if the players want to do something not in any given adventure hook, I will create adventures for them based on that concept (may take a few weeks0
3) the adventures have no "right" answer... the players may guard the caravan, or try to plunder it themselves
4) individual adventures may lead to other adventures, but they don't have to be followed
5) there is no "ticking bomb" -- the world will not end if the players decide to hit second level, retire, buy a tavern, and spend the rest of their lives drunk.  The game may end, but the world will not.

In short, my definition of sandbox is "no set events the players are required to do."

YMMV, store in cool dry place, do not stop moving saw chain with hands or genitals.

Quote from: estar;737663Sounds similar to the campaign advice Marc Miller gives for Traveller. The Traveller Adventure is setup similarly.

The problem I see is that the tendency is still there for the referee to guide the players to the prepared content in a railroad.

It even happens to me at times when I incorporate prepared adventures.

If referee really wants to break himself away from the problems of railroading then what needs to happen is the following.


2) Make a list of NPCs their motivations, stats, and their plans.

3) Finally make a timeline of what will occur in the absence of the PCs. AVOID OVERLY DETAILING THIS. The timeline is like a plan of battle in that it is what you start with. But as the PCs act as their character it will change in response to their action. The changes being decided on the basis of the NPCs motivations and personal plans. You update this after every session.

This is the only type of prep I found that breaks my campaigns from the shackles of the railroad. Otherwise the dramatic difference in the ease of use of prepared adventures, either your own or purchases, dominates.

This is more a sandbox with a political web of NPC's. The idea of the plotpoint campaign is that it isn't a sandbox. It isn't a scene to scene written story either. So I am asking if it really is the middle ground.

Btw, I am mostly interested in writing PPC's, not using them per se. I am interested in using this method for making my own campaigns. I am not that fond of sandboxing. It usually becomes just a series of random events. But I didn't really enjoy the White Wolf way of storytelling either. Railroading, choke points, paying a lot of attention during games as a GM and it isn't fun. I felt shoehorned with the WW method of GM'ing. I hope to find a more organic way of GM'ing while still having a story.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737807This is more a sandbox with a political web of NPC's. The idea of the plotpoint campaign is that it isn't a sandbox. It isn't a scene to scene written story either. So I am asking if it really is the middle ground.

Btw, I am mostly interested in writing PPC's, not using them per se. I am interested in using this method for making my own campaigns. I am not that fond of sandboxing. It usually becomes just a series of random events. But I didn't really enjoy the White Wolf way of storytelling either. Railroading, choke points, paying a lot of attention during games as a GM and it isn't fun. I felt shoehorned with the WW method of GM'ing. I hope to find a more organic way of GM'ing while still having a story.

The PPC approach as used in PEG products tends very much towards the level of detail and style that you would never need to develop for a home game. They'll have five or so "fixed point" adventures that you would certainly not need to develop in advance.

What you probably want to steal more is the idea used in the PPCs of that "story" being a major tipping point in the history of the world. Both 50 Fathoms and Sundered Skies include "this is why the world is the way it is" as mysteries to be unravelled in the PPC.

If you were running the first Star Wars movie as a game in this style for your home game, you'd have the message from Leia, the rescue of Leia and the plans, and the assault on the Death Star as your main "fixed points", along with plans for what Tarkin and Vadar would do at various points in time if not stopped. This means you're guaranteed the epic adventure (as long as the players take interest in it), and can then sprinkle the sandbox seeds around it, and see what happens in play.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737807Btw, I am mostly interested in writing PPC's, not using them per se. I am interested in using this method for making my own campaigns. I am not that fond of sandboxing. It usually becomes just a series of random events. But I didn't really enjoy the White Wolf way of storytelling either. Railroading, choke points, paying a lot of attention during games as a GM and it isn't fun. I felt shoehorned with the WW method of GM'ing. I hope to find a more organic way of GM'ing while still having a story.

It's a choose your own adventure.  Really, that's what it is.  It offers more freedom than a typical railroad, true, but it still doesn't offer meaningful player agency, (again, as far as I can tell).

So it's a matter of what things you find interesting and important in your adventures.  Since I prize player agency heavily, whether I'm on the player side or the GM side, it's not particularly interesting to me.

BTW, a sandbox game shouldn't be a series of *random* events.  It should include the NPCs *reacting* to the actions of the PCs - which isn't random.  Then the PCs react to those, and so on and so forth, and that's what builds the campaign.

Edit:  I guess I'm reacting to the idea of "best of both worlds".  It would be useful to define what you think of as the "best" and "worst" of both railroad and sandbox games.  Since for me, the lack of player agency is the worst part of railroads, PP adventures don't really do it for me.  If that's not a concern for you, they might work great.

For my games, I highly espouse estar's plan.  Interconnected characters with drives that the players can screw with make for *awesome* games.

Quote from: robiswrong;737809It's a choose your own adventure.  Really, that's what it is.  It offers more freedom than a typical railroad, true, but it still doesn't offer meaningful player agency, (again, as far as I can tell).

So it's a matter of what things you find interesting and important in your adventures.  Since I prize player agency heavily, whether I'm on the player side or the GM side, it's not particularly interesting to me.

BTW, a sandbox game shouldn't be a series of *random* events.  It should include the NPCs *reacting* to the actions of the PCs - which isn't random.  Then the PCs react to those, and so on and so forth, and that's what builds the campaign.

Edit:  I guess I'm reacting to the idea of "best of both worlds".  It would be useful to define what you think of as the "best" and "worst" of both railroad and sandbox games.  Since for me, the lack of player agency is the worst part of railroads, PP adventures don't really do it for me.  If that's not a concern for you, they might work great.

For my games, I highly espouse estar's plan.  Interconnected characters with drives that the players can screw with make for *awesome* games.

Well, for a new WoD game you don't really need player agendas if you play a mortals/hunter game. It's investigation based. It plays out like Cthulhu only without the mythos. For a vampire game (and changeling and mage as well) player agendas are THE main focus.

So maybe combining personal agendas (and a political web of NPC's with motivations) with some location based triggered events (like being robbed or finding a corpse) and some time based triggered events (like Elysium)?

Quote from: Opaopajr;737707To be fair, ME3 was a terrible ending that sours a lot of people to almost the entire series to this day.

Word.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737807This is more a sandbox with a political web of NPC's.

It is generally applicable. Everybody, you, me, the other readers of this post, have plans and motivations. The up to the referee to decide which details to focus on.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737807The idea of the plotpoint campaign is that it isn't a sandbox. It isn't a scene to scene written story either. So I am asking if it really is the middle ground.

It is little different than a well written, well organized Pazio style adventure path. The difference is that people using the plot point format are using graph while Paizo doesn't but if you go and create a graph of some of their better adventure paths you will see the same mix of prepared content.

The problem is rooted in adventures being not only descriptions of places but of a specific time.  What i advocate as the middle ground is to put the work into detailing locales and NPCs from a semi-timeless point of view. But leave the specific plots and time in sketch form for the referee to bring to life in response to what the player do. In someways it is similar to how Columbia and Kelestia Productions format their Harn products.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737807Btw, I am mostly interested in writing PPC's, not using them per se. I am interested in using this method for making my own campaigns. I am not that fond of sandboxing. It usually becomes just a series of random events.

Without some more details I can't say why you had a bad experience with a sandbox. In my experience from reading people's accounts the #1 problem is not providing an initial context.

The heart of the sandbox campaign is the fact the players are free make whatever choice their characters are capable of in the game. It does not mean that the sandbox campaigns are about wandering and exploring the landscape.

For example I ran a recent campaigns where the initial context was that the players were low-level members of a mercenary company. Which meant they got missions and orders from their captain i.e. me as the referee roleplaying the referee.

Many would say "Whoa that not a sandbox campaign!". However in my campaigns the players are free to do whatever their character can do. So if in session #3 they decide just to up and leave, I am find with that.

But their are consequences to that action. They signed a contract and received equipment and training. The mercenary company will consider them deserter. And in this campaign the company was a honest one which meant it had legal standing. However the contract also had a buyout provision. And since this was a medieval setting a good relationship with the captain or his lieutenants could give the group a lot of slack.

As it turned out it wasn't long that the party discovered and plundered a dungeon on one of their patrol, opted to buy out their contract, and leave. The consequence of that actions was that they had enough left one for about a month. So they had to find work. Which they soon did as an independent company of their own.

And that resulted in more missions. Which many would say "It still not a sandbox". However the missions were in an active warzone and the players found an opportunity to capture the enemy king.  An opportunity created by them actively learning about the people they were raiding and attacking.  They were successful and with their share of the king's ransom, they bought their contract again and decided to build an inn.

The campaign from that point is what most people would recognize a sandbox. The players figuring out where to build the inn. Going to the nearby city to secure the needed permissions and rights. Exploring the immediate area, and clearing it of any dangers. Finally protecting the site itself while the inn was being built.

I planned the initial context of being part of mercenary company only after polling the players as to how they want to start at. My prep was very traditional for that. I created a map of the region that the company operated and detailed locations, adventure sits, and NPCs.

The other two major phases of the campaign were not planned in the same level of detail. Oh I had a timeline of the realm the players were in. I knew that a war would start X months in the future, that it had predetermined outcome in the absence of PC action. But the players were on the realm's other side. So likely that would have been background chatter to the players.

But as it turned out one playere really wanted to participate. And over the next few session he worked on convincing the others to his point of view. And when they were successful in raiding a dungeon, he was able to convince everybody that they should go fight in the war. An event I had not prepared for.

I literally had to set aside all the prep I done before and detail a new region for them to adventure in. Then later after the king's ransom I had to do it again. It doesn't faze me because after 30 years of refereeing the same setting I have a lot of sketch notes. Plus I developed a large set of what I call a Bag of Stuff that could draw from to create the new contact. Far faster then if I had to write it from scratch. But it was still a fair amount of prep that was put aside at each step of the campaign.


I hope this anecdote helps you in figuring out why you felt sandbox campaigns seem like a collection of random events.  

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737807But I didn't really enjoy the White Wolf way of storytelling either. Railroading, choke points, paying a lot of attention during games as a GM and it isn't fun. I felt shoehorned with the WW method of GM'ing. I hope to find a more organic way of GM'ing while still having a story.

My strong opinion is "fuck story". The story comes when you and your friends go "Hey you remember the time..."  My opinion that as a tabletop referee your job is to create an experience, an interesting place or situation that the player find interesting to interact with. In my view the point of the game is to bring a world to life for the players to experience.

The difference simply this. Instead of trying to tell a story, try to bring a setting to life. Whether it is a city, wilderness, dungeon maze, the star lanes, the Old West, whatever.

Quote from: estar;737891My strong opinion is "fuck story". The story comes when you and your friends go "Hey you remember the time..."

This cannot be repeated too often or too loudly.

"Story" needs to be killed, beheaded, a stake driven through its heart, the eyes sewn shut, the mouth stuffed with garlic, the head buried face down at a crossroads at midnight on a moonless night, the body burned, and the ashes sprinkled over running water.

Quote from: estar;737891My strong opinion is "fuck story". The story comes when you and your friends go "Hey you remember the time..."  

I dunno, you told the story of a mercenary band that fought in a war, captured a king, and then turned themselves into honest innkeepers.  That sounds like a pretty cool story.

But it was the players' story.  It was a series of events that occurred because of what the players did.  It wasn't the GM's story.  Fuck the GM's story in the ear.

So I think we agree ;)

Yeah, so far from Emperor Norton's description I don't see the fixed transition regardless of choice, a la Mass Effect. However it does look like more structured and discrete than a sandbox, as the future is partially flowcharted and the side quests don't have to interconnect (or leave loose end threads you're not interested in). And that charted future is not so much "story" as it is NPC agendas accounted into a single flowchart.

Like a sandbox with already made paved paths and castles areas. More than an average module, but less detailed since it's a calendar flowchart. Sandbox with ready made sand castles and playground schedule?

I'd say that one point that may not be coming out here is that most Savage Worlds Plot Point Campaigns are structured more in terms of "these are the key checkpoints to defeating the ultimate evil" than they are "Evil Santa Claus is coming to down, and there's nothing you can do to stop him (up to the point where there is)".

They're basically keyed maps where one of the location keys leads to an adventure that will span many sessions, and all of the rest are more traditional sandbox style event triggers. There may be exceptions, but in all the PPCs I can bring to mind there's nothing that forces people to follow the main story if they don't want to (even Caribdus won't be utterly destroyed for a couple generations yet IIRC).

Quote from: Opaopajr;737980Yeah, so far from Emperor Norton's description I don't see the fixed transition regardless of choice, a la Mass Effect. However it does look like more structured and discrete than a sandbox, as the future is partially flowcharted and the side quests don't have to interconnect (or leave loose end threads you're not interested in). And that charted future is not so much "story" as it is NPC agendas accounted into a single flowchart.

Per the graph, if you look down the left hand side, there's a linear series of adventures that will be progressed through eventually.

By my reading of the graph (haven't read the actual modules), you're going through those series of things no matter what.

The overall structure seems more similar to a Bethesda game, though, as it doesn't have Bioware's typical "tutorial mission, first real mission, three mandatory parallel storylines, wrap-up mission, final mission, with a bunch of optional sidequests" structure that almost all of their games are based on.

Quote from: Skywalker;737577Or the worst of both worlds, with less freedom than your pure imagination and more effort than a more usual prewritten campaign.

Bingo.

Yeah, situations, plots, NPC plans, whatever you call 'em...those I got.

What I don't have are a whole setting's worth of maps, NPC's, maps, buildings, maps, towns, maps, cities, maps, and maps.  You know, the stuff that takes the Lion's Share of prep time and that Plot Points Campaigns hardly ever have.

Quote from: robiswrong;737961I dunno, you told the story of a mercenary band that fought in a war, captured a king, and then turned themselves into honest innkeepers.  That sounds like a pretty cool story.

I told the story AFTER the campaign was completed.

DURING the campaign, I presented it and adjudicated it as if the player were really there.


What I focus on in prep was the experience of being in my setting doing interesting things .

The story, as such, is the description of what my player experienced.

Quote from: robiswrong;737961But it was the players' story.  It was a series of events that occurred because of what the players did.  It wasn't the GM's story.  Fuck the GM's story in the ear.

So I think we agree ;)

And to hammer an earlier the reason many Sandbox campaign fail because the referee didn't start them out in an situation that the players found interesting.  I get around this by either offering a figurative menu of potential initial situations or the player come to me and say "Hey we want to play a bunch of nobodies in a neighborhood of City-State."

Which by the way was an actual campaign I ran and one of the highlights was the players literally blanket beating a vampire with literal blankets and iron skillets.

Anyway start group doing something interesting and attitude of "Where the party goes, I go as the referee." You have the essential ingredients of a sandbox campaign.

Quote from: robiswrong;737997The overall structure seems more similar to a Bethesda game, though, as it doesn't have Bioware's typical "tutorial mission, first real mission, three mandatory parallel storylines, wrap-up mission, final mission, with a bunch of optional sidequests" structure that almost all of their games are based on.

Yes, Skyrim is a good comparison point for a PPC. Those books offer GMs a wide range of adventure hooks that the players can pick up sandbox style if they find them interesting, and then also a central "spine" series of adventures that the PCs can progress through if they want to. Simply because it's a tabletop game the spine adventures are more flexible than those in Skyrim, but there's still a definite expectation that you will need to pass through five defined checkpoints before you get to punch god in the face and declare victory over the main quest.

I will add that managing a freeform sandbox is not the easiest thing in tabletop roleplaying. Everybody who wants to run a sandbox campaign needs to figure out in their own way how to manage the mass of details that a campaign has.

If it takes a graph, then by god that the right way for you. But just keep in mind it is just a tool that serve you. Not the other way around.

The main caution I have is don't invest too much prep into items that are far into the graph. As circumstances may render that prep moot as a result of PC actions.

Quote from: Grymbok;738011Yes, Skyrim is a good comparison point for a PPC. Those books offer GMs a wide range of adventure hooks that the players can pick up sandbox style if they find them interesting, and then also a central "spine" series of adventures that the PCs can progress through if they want to. Simply because it's a tabletop game the spine adventures are more flexible than those in Skyrim, but there's still a definite expectation that you will need to pass through five defined checkpoints before you get to punch god in the face and declare victory over the main quest.

Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong what Bethseda does with Skyrim is excellent work for CRPGs.  But it is a poor fit for tabletop roleplaying. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SKYRIM A BAD ROLEPLAYING GAME. Just a bad tabletop roleplaying game.

The same with LARPS vs Tabletop RPGs vs CRPGS vs MMORPGs vs Story game vs whatever hell other types of RPGs that are out there.

Quote from: estar;738013Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

No argument from me.

This thread just seems to have devolved in to nothing but people saying that anything other than pure sandboxing is a horrible aberration against true roleplaying that will make Gygax spin in his grave. Which is something of an absolutist view, I'd venture.

Are Plot Point Campaigns the greatest possible form of RPGs? No, but no-one's saying they are. Are they a useful form of published campaign that supports GMs who are looking for more guidance and structure than a pure sandbox setting? Based on my experience I'll give that one a maybe. I think the fact that even Pinnacle - who originated the idea - think they've only done a great job with it once is rather telling.

Are they a good model to emulate in creating home games? Almost certainly not. Mimicking the style slavishly would mean doing work for no good reason that would just limit you later. But taking the central idea of the PPCs - that one of the first hooks you chuck the players can be a big meaty one that if pursued will lead to the campaign world being reshaped, many adventures and diversions later - that's something that I think is a decent approach for some GMs.

Quote from: estar;738008I told the story AFTER the campaign was completed.

I cannot believe some people here on this site still don't get this.

Quote from: estar;738008I told the story AFTER the campaign was completed.

DURING the campaign, I presented it and adjudicated it as if the player were really there.

Totally understood.

Quote from: estar;738008And to hammer an earlier the reason many Sandbox campaign fail because the referee didn't start them out in an situation that the players found interesting.  I get around this by either offering a figurative menu of potential initial situations or the player come to me and say "Hey we want to play a bunch of nobodies in a neighborhood of City-State."

I often do this by figuring out what the players are interested in, and presenting an initial situation.  The reason I don't consider this "railroading" is that in no way do I predict what hte players will do or how they'll respond to that.

Their response, and the consequences of that response, start the campaign ball a-rollin'.

Quote from: estar;738008Anyway start group doing something interesting and attitude of "Where the party goes, I go as the referee." You have the essential ingredients of a sandbox campaign.

Yup.  Learning to say 'yes' when appropriate is a key bit of that.  Almost any player plan should have a chance of success, not just what the GM thought of as the solution.  When you figure that out is when you kind of change from being a creator of puzzles to the creator of a world.

Quote from: estar;738013Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong what Bethseda does with Skyrim is excellent work for CRPGs.  But it is a poor fit for tabletop roleplaying. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SKYRIM A BAD ROLEPLAYING GAME. Just a bad tabletop roleplaying game.

I generally agree.  I won't call it "bad", entirely, as I'm sure some people out there like it.  But for me the whole point of doing tabletop and not WoW is the fact that I *don't* goddamn know what will happen, either as a player or as a GM.

Quote from: Benoist;738022I cannot believe some people here on this site still don't get this.

In case it wasn't clear, I totally get it.  (I think more 'storygames' fit into that bucket than people here give them credit for, too)

I've been pretty clear in my anti-railroad, pro-player agency standpoint all along, I think.

I also wouldn't describe them as "the best of both worlds"

Its just one more campaign model. Its not a sandbox really, but its not a linear adventure, its just another tool in the shed.

It has advantages and disadvantages just like any other model, and some of those disadvantages will make it a bad fit for some groups, while with other groups it won't.

And I agree at Grymbok. I get a laugh out of how adamant people seem to be about "If its not 100% sandbox, its the antithesis of all roleplaying and is bad". Not every game has to be a sandbox. Other models work for other groups. I like sandboxes fine, but there are other ways to play and they are equally valid.

EDIT: Also, there seems to be this weird idea that Plot Points disallow anyone from improvising. Just because there is a set of adventures that go => => => for the "main storyline" of the world, doesn't mean it can't be changed by the GM based on circumstances. It just means there is an established path that can be used if things go the way they are expected in the adventures. If they are supposed to get Macguffin X, but they fail to, well, I can let them plan a way to get Macguffin X from wherever it ended up, or even allow them a way to work through without it.

Having a plot point campaign doesn't prevent anyone from making stuff up.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738026I get a laugh out of how adamant people seem to be about "If its not 100% sandbox, its the antithesis of all roleplaying and is bad".

Can you link to a couple of quotes from these adamant people, or is this just a strawman?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738026EDIT: Also, there seems to be this weird idea that Plot Points disallow anyone from improvising....

This is the core of the disagreement.

Let's say you have a game based around the Empire of Bastardania invading the Kingdom of Goodandniceland.  To stop the Bastardanians, you need the Mac of Guffin, and then to use it to snuff the Flame of Winthegamium.

Great.

So, what happens if the players don't get the Mac of Guffin?

Railroad/Plot Point/Illusionism:  Find a way for them to either get the Mac of Guffin, or a way to win without it, so that we can keep going through the pre-plotted adventures.

Player Agency:  Well, shit, that sucks.  I guess the Bastardanians are gonna win, and the game is probably going to turn into being about resistance fighters under a tyrannical government.

I'm not saying that railroads/plot points are the bane of gaming.  (Illusionism I've got a hate on for, because it's basically LYING).  But that entire "I don't know what is going to happen" is precisely *why* I do tabletop gaming, and so getting rid of that defeats the purpose.

Obviously many people enjoy them.  I'm not one of them, and for me plot point gaming (at least what I've been able to see of it) does *not* address the primary concern that I have with linear campaigns, does *not* include the "best" of sandbox gaming, and so is clearly *not* the best of both worlds.

For some people it may be, as what they consider the "best" of sandbox gaming may be different than my view.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738031Can you link to a couple of quotes from these adamant people, or is this just a strawman?

Spinning straw into adamantium?

Quote from: estar;738012I will add that managing a freeform sandbox is not the easiest thing in tabletop roleplaying. Everybody who wants to run a sandbox campaign needs to figure out in their own way how to manage the mass of details that a campaign has.

If it takes a graph, then by god that the right way for you. But just keep in mind it is just a tool that serve you. Not the other way around.

The main caution I have is don't invest too much prep into items that are far into the graph. As circumstances may render that prep moot as a result of PC actions.

I have been running something of a sandbox lately and been grabbing bits and pieces of your advice here and elsewhere to make it as smooth as possible (most of it has been very helpful).

One thing I found that works for me, is to load as many adventure elements onto NPC motivations as I can. And just generally think a lot about what my NPCs want, so when they are introduced, I know what kinds of things they will ask of the players, what challenges they might pose, etc. Rather than construct an adventure in the City of Tsun where the party must find the Jade Sunflower while contending with the minions of Lord Golden Helm, I don't worry about that. I put the Jade Sunflower in Tsun, and I include mention of Lord Golden Helm's Desire for it in his NPC entry. So separating those two elements makes it easier for me pull in during play. Focusing on NPCs helps me a lot here.

I also found shifting to a gazetteer organization for everything was helpful. I have a map, and everything on my map has an entry in my gazetteer. The only other section in my notebook is the NPC and Organizations section (and for ease of play I repeat a lot of text in both sections). The adventure really seems to emerge as an interaction between where the players go and who they interact with.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;738046One thing I found that works for me, is to load as many adventure elements onto NPC motivations as I can. And just generally think a lot about what my NPCs want, so when they are introduced, I know what kinds of things they will ask of the players, what challenges they might pose, etc. Rather than construct an adventure in the City of Tsun where the party must find the Jade Sunflower while contending with the minions of Lord Golden Helm, I don't worry about that. I put the Jade Sunflower in Tsun, and I include mention of Lord Golden Helm's Desire for it in his NPC entry. So separating those two elements makes it easier for me pull in during play. Focusing on NPCs helps me a lot here.

This is really useful.  If you've planned "the players will go to x, y, and z", and then the players decide something else, you're kind of left in the weeds.

If you can push that stuff onto NPCs, you're left with "okay, how does this NPC respond now?" which is a lot easier to work with.

Quote from: estar;738013Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong what Bethseda does with Skyrim is excellent work for CRPGs.  But it is a poor fit for tabletop roleplaying. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SKYRIM A BAD ROLEPLAYING GAME. Just a bad tabletop roleplaying game.

The same with LARPS vs Tabletop RPGs vs CRPGS vs MMORPGs vs Story game vs whatever hell other types of RPGs that are out there.

Let's follow the logic here PPCs are like Skyrim => Skyrim is a bad model for tabletop RPGs => PPC is a bad model for Tabletop RPGs.

But sure, no one here is making out that Sandbox is the only "pure" roleplaying option.

And no, robiswrong, the idea that you will inevitably do the main storyline is bullshit. And in this case, it is EXACTLY like my experiences with one of the earlier Elder Scrolls games. I still, for the life of me, have NO IDEA what the main story of Daggerfall was. And I've had a huge amount of max level characters in it. I never had to do the "main plot" just like no one ever has to do the "main plot" in a plot point campaign.

And actually, if you don't think "Oh man, we lost the Macguffin to that other guy" doesn't lead to your characters going "well, then we should get it back from him" which leads to its own adventure... yeah idk.

And as said before, the best PPCs don't have the ticking clock. Even if you fail and NEVER take out the "big bad" or whatever, the game goes on fine. The world doesn't disintegrate. There have been tons of games run with the 50 Fathoms PPC where no one even touched the "main" story of the game. There are tons of things to do in the campaign outside of that (including a plethora of random encounter charts).

There is nothing preventing player agency. If you do the "core" adventures, ok. If you fail them, ok. If you fail and try to think of a way to get around it, ok. If you fail and then abandon them, ok. If you never even look at them? ok. PPC just creates a structure. It doesn't lobotomize the GM.

Quote from: estar;738013Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong what Bethseda does with Skyrim is excellent work for CRPGs.  But it is a poor fit for tabletop roleplaying. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SKYRIM A BAD ROLEPLAYING GAME. Just a bad tabletop roleplaying game.

The same with LARPS vs Tabletop RPGs vs CRPGS vs MMORPGs vs Story game vs whatever hell other types of RPGs that are out there.

Isn't skyrim a choose your adventure game rather than a true sandbox? I mean your action don't really have a lot of consequences. I don't see NPC's or NPC factions reacting to the things you did. They just wait till you come past their town for a quest or their dungeon for some dungeon crawling.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738026I also wouldn't describe them as "the best of both worlds"

Its just one more campaign model. Its not a sandbox really, but its not a linear adventure, its just another tool in the shed.

It has advantages and disadvantages just like any other model, and some of those disadvantages will make it a bad fit for some groups, while with other groups it won't.

And I agree at Grymbok. I get a laugh out of how adamant people seem to be about "If its not 100% sandbox, its the antithesis of all roleplaying and is bad". Not every game has to be a sandbox. Other models work for other groups. I like sandboxes fine, but there are other ways to play and they are equally valid.

EDIT: Also, there seems to be this weird idea that Plot Points disallow anyone from improvising. Just because there is a set of adventures that go => => => for the "main storyline" of the world, doesn't mean it can't be changed by the GM based on circumstances. It just means there is an established path that can be used if things go the way they are expected in the adventures. If they are supposed to get Macguffin X, but they fail to, well, I can let them plan a way to get Macguffin X from wherever it ended up, or even allow them a way to work through without it.

Having a plot point campaign doesn't prevent anyone from making stuff up.

It is supposed to leave room for improvisation. I never liked the fact that WW wants you to write scene to scene type of adventures. Every scene is followed immediatelly by another one. I like it when the story breathes a little bit. They can improvise till a scene gets triggered by them either entering a location, after the passing of an amount of time or as a reaction on what they did before.

Doesn't a sandbox works well only in a fantasy RPG? With a map and different races and such? I don't see people sandboxing Cthulhu somehow.

Btw, I might be trying something like a plot point campaign (the method) for my next WoD mortal game focused on interaction with the spirit world. So it's occult investigation. I don't see that being sandboxed as well.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;738046One thing I found that works for me, is to load as many adventure elements onto NPC motivations as I can. And just generally think a lot about what my NPCs want, so when they are introduced, I know what kinds of things they will ask of the players, what challenges they might pose, etc.

Somebody once told me in terms of either theater or writing, "each character in a scene wants something, and they will attempt to maneuver events to get what they want.  Even if all they want is to quietly serve the wine and get the hell back downstairs before anybody notices them, or if what they want is to kill the king and usurp the throne."

If you know what the NPCs want, you're home free.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;737580A plot point campaign is a thing done for Savage World settings a lot that works like this.

There are a bunch of "set" adventures, dependent on time and location, and whether or not you've finished other adventures, and how they worked out.

It may have a central "plot" but the players don't really HAVE to interact with it, and can go in any direction they really wish. What adventures trigger will depend on where they go and what has happened up to that point.

You can usually draw them up in a flow chart. For instance the Sundered Skies one has a neat chart someone made for it that looks like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/FCZJHDH.png)

Its kind of a middle step between a plotted campaign and a sandbox. Like a directed sandbox. The adventures usually aren't too in depth, just giving general ideas of how they work rather than being broken down into every little scene, and there is a lot of room for GM improv and player creativity. And certain ones may link into a coherent story, but a lot are also optional and stuff.

I personally like them, but can see where other people might not.

So its a bit like meta plot that you don't necessarily have to interact with like playing in the Star Wars universe during the movies. They'll be happening in the background and if the PCs choose to jump in they can or happen to be the right place at the right (or wrong) time they might get caught up something related or or an event stemming from a "canonical" event but the game itself isn't automatically focused on them or steered in a particular direction/

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738079Doesn't a sandbox works well only in a fantasy RPG? With a map and different races and such? I don't see people sandboxing Cthulhu somehow.

I've ran a sandbox Call of Cthulhu game. It was a "small" sandbox (New England instead of the whole world). The PCs were independently wealthy (actually, only one of the was truly wealthy) and they wondered around the New England area looking for things man was not meant to know. Replacement PCs were friends, cousins, servants (the wealthy PC's butler), etc.

Quote from: robiswrong;738050This is really useful.  If you've planned "the players will go to x, y, and z", and then the players decide something else, you're kind of left in the weeds.

If you can push that stuff onto NPCs, you're left with "okay, how does this NPC respond now?" which is a lot easier to work with.

For me, it creates a more organic experience. I also find knowing what my different npcs are up to keeps me relaxed should the players start to get a bit aimless.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062And as said before, the best PPCs don't have the ticking clock. Even if you fail and NEVER take out the "big bad" or whatever, the game goes on fine. The world doesn't disintegrate. There have been tons of games run with the 50 Fathoms PPC where no one even touched the "main" story of the game. There are tons of things to do in the campaign outside of that (including a plethora of random encounter charts).

There is nothing preventing player agency. If you do the "core" adventures, ok. If you fail them, ok. If you fail and try to think of a way to get around it, ok. If you fail and then abandon them, ok. If you never even look at them? ok. PPC just creates a structure. It doesn't lobotomize the GM.

OK, so it sounds like my reading of what you wrote was closer. It's basically a big abstracted map of a campaign's space and time. Nothing is necessary to keep playing the game, and there is no single right answer to a chain of problems (or any of its links).

Perhaps what I do is closer to a sandbox than this, but that one campaign of mine does seem like it shares similar parts. Is there any free module/campaign products that is a good PPC example? And of the small number you said that did it well (where even Pinnacle is ambivalent on PPCs' success), which would be exemplary to check out?

In a way it sounds like a bundle of adventure module ideas gathered around a central campaign time and space. If they have a decent location map included, might be some useful "regional outline" stuff.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062Let's follow the logic here PPCs are like Skyrim => Skyrim is a bad model for tabletop RPGs => PPC is a bad model for Tabletop RPGs.

My comment was limited to CPRGs only. As for PPCs, many successfully used graphs to organize complex relationships between many elements. So the graph that is at the heart of the PPC format is a useful tool. The format itself will work.

But it doesn't fully take advantage of a human referee running a tabletop campaign. A similar graph could be made for adventure content of World of Warcraft and so on.

My opinion for tabletop RPGs to thrive and continue design of products need focus on the unique characteristic of tabletop. Characteristics that other forms of roleplaying games can't or have difficulty doing.


While a computer can power a simulation of a fantasy world in a way a human referee can't. The human referee can use experience and judgement to present a slice of the fantasy world in a dynamic way. While it is only a slice compared to the entire world a computer can handle, in the hands of the skilled human referee it can feel more real than most finely rendered virtual world of today.

The same way a skilled author can bring a time, place, or person to life in a book.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062But sure, no one here is making out that Sandbox is the only "pure" roleplaying option.

Right but my opinion is that the entire sandbox format and management strategy is one that LARPS, CRPGS, and MMORPGS either can't or have difficulty doing.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062And as said before, the best PPCs don't have the ticking clock. Even if you fail and NEVER take out the "big bad" or whatever, the game goes on fine. The world doesn't disintegrate. There have been tons of games run with the 50 Fathoms PPC where no one even touched the "main" story of the game. There are tons of things to do in the campaign outside of that (including a plethora of random encounter charts).

If you remember that the setting a WORLD instead of a Star Wars style desert plant, forest planet, ice world, etc. Then there room for a lot more just like in the real world.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737567Does it provide the story without the railroading?

The only possible answers to that question are Maybe and No. You can't guarantee a given "the story" without railroading, because that's just what railroading is.

Look, the basic problem is deciding in advance that the players shall do this or that. This is really bizarre coming from the context of games in which Dungeons & Dragons made its debut. If I'm playing a WW2 game as the Germans, there's no schedule like, "Oh, now I'm supposed to get Sixth Army surrounded and destroyed at Stalingrad."

Even a historical game is alternate history! What's the point of play, if not for the players to make a new course of events? When you've got a map and pieces, why add a script? That's the difference between actually playing a game of cards, and just acting in a movie of Casino Royale.

Quote from: jeff37923;737711It works well to provide some structure to a sandbox, but GMs still have to be able to respond to where the Players lead the campaign when they do things that have not been prepared for.

If the structure is only in the GM's anticipation of potential shifts the players might make in the sand, then well enough. But the tendency these days is to make stuff so elaborate that it's a big waste if the players choose to make different waves instead; and to present it with the assumption that the GM's job is to force events into one of the expected patterns.

Quote from: robiswrong;737809Interconnected characters with drives that the players can screw with make for *awesome* games.

I've found that a good cast of NPCs is my #1 asset! It ends up making things flow quite easily and naturally, as if the game has taken on a life of its own.

If someone wants to make a scheme similar to a pick-your-path-book, the development of NPCs would at least provide a more plausible and meaningful basis for "scenes" than arbitrarily shunting the player(s) here and there. Have the NPCs respond to player choices by doing things that set up the next set of choices.

That business, though, was basically dictated by the limitations of the medium. Computer programs pretty quickly took its place; and for many people the main point of a human-moderated game is the flexibility, the fact one is not limited to a menu of preset options.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738079Doesn't a sandbox works well only in a fantasy RPG? With a map and different races and such? I don't see people sandboxing Cthulhu somehow.

Y'know, different people mean different things. At least in my experience, "sandbox" came up in the RPG context to mean what "campaign" used to mean: not only in Chivalry & Sorcery but equally in Gangbusters.

Historically, Call of Cthulhu scenarios such as Shadows of Yog-Sothoth (1982) and Masks of Nyarlathotep (1984) were among the earliest -- and probably still among the best -- designs of this "plot point" sort. However strongly associated that may have become with the brand, it has also featured situation scenarios.

The basic distinction of "sandbox" from the newer concept of game (campaign, adventure, etc.) as "the GM's plan for what will happen" seems to me perfectly clear in the old board games I mentioned. The game presents the players with an initial state, and perhaps some conditionally triggered events, but the players make the moves.

It doesn't matter whether the scenario is the shopping mall siege in Dawn of the Dead, the Congress of Vienna, the Scramble for Africa, rival railroad tycoons of the Gilded Age, the Russian Civil War, the 1991 Major League Baseball Season, pirates of Madagascar, the Space Race of the 1960s, the Affair of the Diamond Necklace, the Whitechapel Murders, Count Dracula in London, or what have you.

This thread goes in all directions.

Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of sandboxing, especially if it creates more organic games.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211This thread goes in all directions.

Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of sandboxing, especially if it creates more organic games.

While I don't think there are definitive definitions of these things, I would draw a distinction between

• The players (mostly) follow their own agenda ("sandbox")
• The players react to someone else's actions (E.g. a serial murder) (not sure what to call it)

#1 is what I'd call a "sandbox" -- the PC's don't have any (significant) forces acting on them and no imperative calls-to-action.

#2 isn't a railroad or an illusion or anything -- the PCs can react however they want, including completely disengaging (although disengaging probably means the end of the game or such a significant change in the game that it wouldn't look anything like the original scenario)

In my experience quite a few fun, successful games are model #2:

• Top Secret (or other spy or military games), where the PCs are getting missions from their Administrator or C.O.
• Super Hero Games, where the PC's are reacting to crimes, chasing criminals, etc.
• Call of Cthulhu, where the PC's are given something curious and disturbing to "investigate"
• Any D&D scenario that starts with a specific call-to-action, where the consequences for disengaging mean, basically, not playing

Here's another thought: over time, a sandbox game will likely morph into #2, as the PC's become powerful and well-known enough to have responsibilities to take care of (stopping serial murderers) or enemies who will move against their interests most probably inspiring a reaction.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211This thread goes in all directions.

Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of sandboxing, especially if it creates more organic games.

I just had a session in my samdbox where this happened exactly: local swordsman was possessed by an evil vulture spirit and running wild on local villagers. When i planted that seed, I figured eventually another wandering hero or group would help resolve the situation (in about a month or two). So it wouldnt just hang there, unsolved until all villagers were dead.

My players passed through the village initially, heard the stories of the local killings, but had more pressing business so moved on. They only went back the following session because the player who had pressing business elsewhere missed the session and the rest of the group was interested in returning to the village to solve the murders. But this sort of thing pops up all the time, and often times the players just pass it by.

The trick is you dont plant stuff too deeply. You have a bunch of seeds like that floating around, but you dont get invested in any of them. I actually found it freed me up a lot as a GM. Letting the characts wander and do what they want was quite liberating and eventually starting leading to its own adventures.

That said, it is jsut one way to run a game. I don't always do sandboxes. But they defintely can be fun if you give them a try and you relax a bit about how you approach the session.

I think what some people mean when they say Sand box would be better described as Player Driven rather than Plot Driven. Especially for games with more detailed premises than "Wandering Adventurers".

Player Driven worlds respond to the PCs actions and responses to what goes on around them. Nothing is set in stone. For instance of the PCs are investigating a murder and get lucky or have some clever insight early on they can skip to bagging the killer right away or they might screw up and the murderer gets away, perhaps to show up again or do whatever other plans they had in mind. There are no set encounters after the introduction moment or moments. Just clues, NPCs with motivations, possible threats, etc. The world proceeds as logically as the GM can accomplished based on the players actions and their consequences, in game reasons, the premise and steered by genre and other narrative elements.

These games create "stories" but they're what happens in the game once the PCs make choices, some times guided by a premise like "you're police detectives" or "paranormal researchers". The stories created may not fit in the traditional mold and structure of stories for their basic genre, of course. even if they have the thematic and stylistic trappings that's part of giving the PCs freedom.

Quote from: -E.;738213In my experience quite a few fun, successful games are model #2:

• Top Secret (or other spy or military games), where the PCs are getting missions from their Administrator or C.O.
• Super Hero Games, where the PC's are reacting to crimes, chasing criminals, etc.
• Call of Cthulhu, where the PC's are given something curious and disturbing to "investigate"
• Any D&D scenario that starts with a specific call-to-action, where the consequences for disengaging mean, basically, not playing

Here's another thought: over time, a sandbox game will likely morph into #2, as the PC's become powerful and well-known enough to have responsibilities to take care of (stopping serial murderers) or enemies who will move against their interests most probably inspiring a reaction.

Cheers,
-E.

Thanks for the additional explanation.

I think my game is like the Cthulhu game. A world of darkness mortal game (or hunter, which is in a way an add-on to the mortals game) is like Cthulhu. They get something weird to investigate. Because there isn't any set Mythos, it can be anything.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;738216I just had a session in my samdbox where this happened exactly: local swordsman was possessed by an evil vulture spirit and running wild on local villagers. When i planted that seed, I figured eventually another wandering hero or group would help resolve the situation (in about a month or two). So it wouldnt just hang there, unsolved until all villagers were dead.

My players passed through the village initially, heard the stories of the local killings, but had more pressing business so moved on. They only went back the following session because the player who had pressing business elsewhere missed the session and the rest of the group was interested in returning to the village to solve the murders. But this sort of thing pops up all the time, and often times the players just pass it by.

The trick is you dont plant stuff too deeply. You have a bunch of seeds like that floating around, but you dont get invested in any of them. I actually found it freed me up a lot as a GM. Letting the characts wander and do what they want was quite liberating and eventually starting leading to its own adventures.

That said, it is jsut one way to run a game. I don't always do sandboxes. But they defintely can be fun if you give them a try and you relax a bit about how you approach the session.

I think I know how I can do this. It will be more like the Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines game. A bunch of seeds floating around in the city. A murder in the dock, a haunted mansion in the slums, a kidnapping in downtown, patients disappearing in the asylum. It does seem like a lot of work, but maybe I should't flesh them out too much. Going for a really broad game preperation and not a really deep one.

Quote from: Nexus;738218I think what some people mean when they say Sand box would be better described as Player Driven rather than Plot Driven. Especially for games with more detailed premises than "Wandering Adventurers".

Player Driven worlds respond to the PCs actions and responses to what goes on around them. Nothing is set in stone. For instance of the PCs are investigating a murder and get lucky or have some clever insight early on they can skip to bagging the killer right away or they might screw up and the murderer gets away, perhaps to show up again or do whatever other plans they had in mind. There are no set encounters after the introduction moment or moments. Just clues, NPCs with motivations, possible threats, etc. The world proceeds as logically as the GM can accomplished based on the players actions and their consequences, in game reasons, the premise and steered by genre and other narrative elements.

These games create "stories" but they're what happens in the game once the PCs make choices, some times guided by a premise like "you're police detectives" or "paranormal researchers". The stories created may not fit in the traditional mold and structure of stories for their basic genre, of course. even if they have the thematic and stylistic trappings that's part of giving the PCs freedom.

Character driven is another word for it. Character driven vs. plot driven.

Strangely enough WW games always want you to make a web of NPC's with their motivations and their relations towards each other. Guy A hates guy B because he betrayed him once. Guy B knows guy C killed someone during a frenzy. Stuff like that.

Oddly enough they also want you to write stories with a beginning, a middle and an end. Although the part about a story arc is absent in the latest edition of vampire. Ok, I think I might give it a shot.

Yeah, I think the interpretations coming up here is far more fixated on the negative connotations of plot, and not noticing the 'un-plot-like' (read: not a railroad) function of the abstract outline.

From the graph I cannot see anything that declares any fixed progression. And they are so abstract as to necessitate GM detail, and thus natural readjustment to PC actions. I don't own a PPC, so my personal perception stops there, but from what's been said and seen I don't see railroad concerns unless one runs it mindlessly.

Further, I dig -E.'s distinction between the two major methods of character driven responses. In fact, if I may reword them a bit:

1. Players act, driving their own agenda. (predominant sandbox campaign impulse)
2. Players react, driving a counter-agenda (hopefully their own) v. BBEG. (predominant mission campaign impulse)

It is easy for #1 to slip into ennui and stagnancy, as analysis paralysis can affect less pro-active parties and new players. This is a point estar often warns about.
It is easy for #2 to slip into spoon fed trail of solutions that the party follows, as many a railroad-y published module has shown. This is a failing many rightfully rant about.

Yet all together I don't see how one precludes the other. Several games thrive on a mission-based structure. And given how spacious and freeform sandboxes are, it seems like a natural fit to embed missions within. You can have a spread of active and reactive parts in a sandbox, as each creates their own failure consequences of less quest hooks and setting badness respectively. The chart so far looks like just a quick communication method of active & reactive hooks within a campaign scope.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

Yes exactly that. A sandbox referee shouldn't be welded to any one thing that is going on. Like in my example I in essence "threw away" my detailed prep twice.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Here the thing, if the murder was handed to the players as an assignment. then they must be in a position where

a) they would be handed assignment related to people being murder.
b) said position is probably a dominate aspect of their lives.
c) If the sandbox referee is doing his job right, that meant that the players choose to have their character be in such position either as result of previous events or as part of the initial start of the campaign.

They have the choice of ignoring the assignment but they would then suffer the consequences and that what the campaign would be about from that point onwards. The consequences of ignoring the assignment resulting in their removal from the position.

Quote from: -E.;738213#1 is what I'd call a "sandbox" -- the PC's don't have any (significant) forces acting on them and no imperative calls-to-action.

I think those criteria go way overboard, and I can't think of any examples corresponding to them. That doesn't mean there aren't any out there, but it suggests that's not what people are usually talking about.

Again, consider the hobby game scene in which D&D debuted. You've got objectives, and forces working against your attaining those. BUT you can move all over the map, employing whatever priorities and strategies you please.

It's a big map -- most often in the old days a large number of hexagons permitting movement along six axis at each point -- not something with as few branches as the sample flowchart posted in this thread.

The bottom line to me:

(A) If you really value "sandbox" freedom, then any schematic can be no more than provisional planning for a subset of contingencies. It cannot be a prescriptive and enforced limit on the universe of possibilities.

EDIT: There CAN be -- as a rule ARE -- limits on the universe of possibilities in a game. If you get into territory in which this has become some abstruse philosophical point, then you have wandered out of the domain that's practically relevant to the matter at hand.

(B) If you place more value on a pick-a-path structure, which can ensure that things fall within certain parameters, then we can talk about techniques for doing that. But please, let us dispense with nonsense conflating it with "sandbox," because that is just counterproductive.

Quote from: Phillip;738341I think those criteria go way overboard, and I can't think of any examples corresponding to them. That doesn't mean there aren't any out there, but it suggests that's not what people are usually talking about.

Again, consider the hobby game scene in which D&D debuted. You've got objectives, and forces working against your attaining those. BUT you can move all over the map, employing whatever priorities and strategies you please.

It's a big map -- most often in the old days a large number of hexagons permitting movement along six axis at each point -- not something with as few branches as the sample flowchart posted in this thread.

That flowchart has 60+ adventures on it, quite a few of which have no prereqs other than being in the right location, not to mention the full PPC, in the actual book, provides descriptions of a large number of locales and random encounter charts involved in travel from location to location, or the fact that using a PPC doesn't lobotomize the GM into being unable to improvise.

The idea of a PPC isn't to be "THIS IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN EVER DO" its a whole bunch of stuff that is easily accessible to the GM so he doesn't have to make up everything. Its no different than picking up a premade dungeon and placing it on your world map somewhere in a hex crawl.

Another thing that people seem to ignore is that most of those adventures have only setup of the situation and goals. Seriously, they don't write up 60+ full paizo adventure path adventures with set scenes and all that jazz. The players have plenty of freedom to employ whatever means they want to complete the goals of the adventure... or just not do it at all. Or take money up front and then just say fuck it and run away with it... granted there might be some people after them if they do that.

Quote from: Phillip;738341I think those criteria go way overboard, and I can't think of any examples corresponding to them. That doesn't mean there aren't any out there, but it suggests that's not what people are usually talking about.

Again, consider the hobby game scene in which D&D debuted. You've got objectives, and forces working against your attaining those. BUT you can move all over the map, employing whatever priorities and strategies you please.

It's a big map -- most often in the old days a large number of hexagons permitting movement along six axis at each point -- not something with as few branches as the sample flowchart posted in this thread.

Well, I think this is the biggest problem. WoD games are modern city games. You are not a wandering adventurer. You stick in one place. Your appartment.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738368That flowchart has 60+ adventures on it, quite a few of which have no prereqs other than being in the right location, not to mention the full PPC, in the actual book, provides descriptions of a large number of locales and random encounter charts involved in travel from location to location, or the fact that using a PPC doesn't lobotomize the GM into being unable to improvise.

The idea of a PPC isn't to be "THIS IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN EVER DO" its a whole bunch of stuff that is easily accessible to the GM so he doesn't have to make up everything. Its no different than picking up a premade dungeon and placing it on your world map somewhere in a hex crawl.

Another thing that people seem to ignore is that most of those adventures have only setup of the situation and goals. Seriously, they don't write up 60+ full paizo adventure path adventures with set scenes and all that jazz. The players have plenty of freedom to employ whatever means they want to complete the goals of the adventure... or just not do it at all. Or take money up front and then just say fuck it and run away with it... granted there might be some people after them if they do that.

Yep, I think a lot of people in this thread think PPC's are completely written out. They aren't. It has a few main quest and a lot of side quests. And none of them are fleshed out. It's just a premise of one page perhaps.

Quote from: estar;738337Yes exactly that. A sandbox referee shouldn't be welded to any one thing that is going on. Like in my example I in essence "threw away" my detailed prep twice.

Ok I think I can do that. It will be a really broad setting with numerous NPC's like serial killers, cults, criminal organisations and of course a lot of different spirits, spirit ridden and spirit claimed roaming the streets. And of course a lot of regular folks as well. It's worth a shot. It might be a much more natural setting this way. I don't need to keep track of the story all the time. And it keeps things interesting if there is a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes without my players knowing it. I played with this idea before.

Quote from: estar;738337Here the thing, if the murder was handed to the players as an assignment. then they must be in a position where

a) they would be handed assignment related to people being murder.
b) said position is probably a dominate aspect of their lives.
c) If the sandbox referee is doing his job right, that meant that the players choose to have their character be in such position either as result of previous events or as part of the initial start of the campaign.

a. Yes.
b. Yep they are investigators/hunters. They either form a single cell or they are part of an organisation doing stuff like that.
c. Yes, hunters hunt. They could got back to their dayjobs, but that isn't very exciting. A pure mortals game is different. There you need to set up some motivation for them to discover what goes bumb in the night. But that means "writing" and that feels contrived to me. That's usually the tricky part. Why would a college student investigate a haunted mansion? He wouldn't, unless he is nuts. I usually take the easy road and let them be either police or private investigators. Maybe I should ask them what they want to achieve and serve them what they want.

Quote from: estar;738337They have the choice of ignoring the assignment but they would then suffer the consequences and that what the campaign would be about from that point onwards. The consequences of ignoring the assignment resulting in their removal from the position.

I don't think it would be negative. Life would just go on. If there are not curious about it, then nothing really happens. Maybe I should make it more personal to get them invested.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738384I don't think it would be negative. Life would just go on. If there are not curious about it, then nothing really happens. Maybe I should make it more personal to get them invested.

If it wouldn't have negative impact if it was ignored, then why would it matter if the PCs got involved or not in the first place?

Quote from: robiswrong;738386If it wouldn't have negative impact if it was ignored, then why would it matter if the PCs got involved or not in the first place?

Lost opportunity. Technically not a negative in the PCs' lives. Just a positive slipping out of their grasp.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738384I don't think it would be negative. Life would just go on. If there are not curious about it, then nothing really happens. Maybe I should make it more personal to get them invested.

I would look at past seasons of Supernatural for inspiration. Particularly the ones where Sam or Dean "retire" from hunting for a while.

The basic gist is that while they are successful in leaving the hunter's life for a while something comes back to drag them back in. They were just too involved and made too enemies to truly get out.

Then there are the time when Sam and/or Dean let something go or rarely missed something. When it comes back to bite them it because the bad buy grew stronger. They realized their mistake because of some signature characteristic of the bad buy.

Applied to your murderer means if the players ignore the case the person or creature gets to complete his spree. Then moves on to something bigger. What you need to do is make sure there is enough of a signature in the clues that later they can go "You know that murder thing we thought the cops would be able to handle? That this thing in there." followed by a "oh, shit!" as they realizaed they could have a nipped the big bad in the bud if they followed up.

Thinking more about it I highly recommend mining Buffy, Supernatural, Angel, Grimm, etc for idea. Especially those episode that show more of the life of the setting that the main characters inhabit. For example Supernatural periodically have hunter with different attitudes and techniques show up. Those are sometime more interesting than what the main characters do.

Since people seem to ignore it and argue against a straw man, I'll reiterate that preparing for possible turns of event is so unobjectionable, so old hat and usual, as to make fatuous any puffing about it being anything other than a "sandbox" game.

It doesn't need a fancy new name like "Plot Point Campaign" any more than writing up a dungeon key needs to be called something like "Matrix Point Dynamics" and talked up as the hottest innovation since decimal dice. Get real, people!

Are you going to leave it at that, or are you going to force players to conform to your limited set of options? That's the fundamental yes or no question, and all that being slippery about it is going to do is reduce discussion to confusion.

Be a bullshit artist, and of course you're going to stir up controversy where there's no non-bullshit reason for it.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738381Well, I think this is the biggest problem. WoD games are modern city games. You are not a wandering adventurer. You stick in one place. Your appartment.

That must be one heck of an exciting apartment!

An overwhelming majority of people venture at least through the apartment building and to a store. An only slightly smaller majority travel to various places by various routes meeting various people and having various interactions with them in a world that is in various states from one day or even hour to another: a truly vast universe of possibilities.

Quote from: estar;738462I would look at past seasons of Supernatural for inspiration. Particularly the ones where Sam or Dean "retire" from hunting for a while.

The basic gist is that while they are successful in leaving the hunter's life for a while something comes back to drag them back in. They were just too involved and made too enemies to truly get out.

Then there are the time when Sam and/or Dean let something go or rarely missed something. When it comes back to bite them it because the bad buy grew stronger. They realized their mistake because of some signature characteristic of the bad buy.

Applied to your murderer means if the players ignore the case the person or creature gets to complete his spree. Then moves on to something bigger. What you need to do is make sure there is enough of a signature in the clues that later they can go "You know that murder thing we thought the cops would be able to handle? That this thing in there." followed by a "oh, shit!" as they realizaed they could have a nipped the big bad in the bud if they followed up.

Thinking more about it I highly recommend mining Buffy, Supernatural, Angel, Grimm, etc for idea. Especially those episode that show more of the life of the setting that the main characters inhabit. For example Supernatural periodically have hunter with different attitudes and techniques show up. Those are sometime more interesting than what the main characters do.

Heh, it's just a little awkward to someone mention all those shows, only without the context of writing a plot. WoD books always mention shows, films and books like these as inspiration. Only with the intention of writing a plot.

Something like:
Scene 1: Introduction of the NPC's, themes and mood
Scene 2: Introduction of the main threat
Scene 3: Escalation of the main threat
Scene 4: etc.

Anyway, I always sucked at that. I just have to wrap my brain around seeing this used in another context I guess. :confused:

Quote from: Phillip;738521Since people seem to ignore it and argue against a straw man, I'll reiterate that preparing for possible turns of event is so unobjectionable, so old hat and usual, as to make fatuous any puffing about it being anything other than a "sandbox" game.

It doesn't need a fancy new name like "Plot Point Campaign" any more than writing up a dungeon key needs to be called something like "Matrix Point Dynamics" and talked up as the hottest innovation since decimal dice. Get real, people!

Are you going to leave it at that, or are you going to force players to conform to your limited set of options? That's the fundamental yes or no question, and all that being slippery about it is going to do is reduce discussion to confusion.

Be a bullshit artist, and of course you're going to stir up controversy where there's no non-bullshit reason for it.

I try to read your previous four or five posts and I must admit that I don´t understand any of them. Your sentences are so awkward in their construction, I really don´t know what to make from it.

Quote from: Phillip;738534That must be one heck of an exciting apartment!

An overwhelming majority of people venture at least through the apartment building and to a store. An only slightly smaller majority travel to various places by various routes meeting various people and having various interactions with them in a world that is in various states from one day or even hour to another: a truly vast universe of possibilities.

Usually a haven, hotspot and Elysium are the only places vampires often meet. There is no need for a mortal character to really go out and investigate what goes bump in the night. Unless it`s his job and he gets ordered to. Otherwise he just leads a run of the mill life with an office job and a mortgage.

A mortal doesn´t choose this life. Something happens to him or her. They might be victim or someone in their personal might be victim. Their mother bought a mirror from a second hand store and it appears to be cursed. Stuff like that.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738600I try to read your previous four or five posts and I must admit that I don´t understand any of them. Your sentences are so awkward in their construction, I really don´t know what to make from it.

philip is arguing that, unlike the railroad accusation due to the word "plot" in its title, PPCs are essentially a sandbox from his viewpoint. He is asking what makes them different, because otherwise to him it is reselling with a new label. I am not philip, he may correct, and further caveats infinitum.

As from what I can see, know that I do not own a PPC to say with any authority, there's several things that immediately stand out:

The first thing I see different from the standard sandbox campaign -- often home brew -- is that this PPC is already populated heavily with a spread of active and reactive premises. Most GMs when I look at their home sandboxes behind the screen do not overly populate, as 60+ premise hooks is quite a lot. As for products, mini-sandbox modules just don't have the volume, and while campaign box sets may have that volume it is often over a far larger area (from what I can tell from the regions in the PPC chart).

The second thing is the interweaving, the threading of hooks into a regional tapestry in space. The obvious arrows stand out immediately. Note too the colored blocks covering several hooks at once, denoting shared region. Regional space is populated and interconnected with its own hooks, and different regional spaces are interconnected through transitionary (travel?) hooks. The layout is not about a connecting trade route on a map, but about hooks and relations that make these spaces relevant within and nearby.

The third thing I see is extrapolation through time. The tiers speak of regional challenges, which though not necessarily connected with previous hooks, connect to the same space over different eras of PC time. Further, there are hooks that do connect over time, some within the same tier and some straddling more than one. This is usually not provided by sandboxes, as they tend to not extrapolate too far beyond a specific dateline. Here, since time's accounting is fungible regarding a BBEG's agenda, this can allow for extrapolations from beginning tier to well beyond "name level," as it were.

Fourth thing I see is this usage of mission-based structure, that extrapolation of connected hooks through a fungible stretch of time (a.k.a. BBEG agenda). Sandbox products tend to avoid these direct lines of connection in products, as they usually take a rumor table and a limited calendar of events (Forgotten Realms grey box), having difficulty tying an agenda to a concrete timeline without destroying the sandbox. As this flowchart is uninterested in concrete time and tight direct lines of causation, these mission-based structures can be embedded within a sandbox's time and space again.

Essentially, yes, it is through party pro-action a sandbox. And, yes, it uses reaction missions, familiar to many a published module. But unlike often seen in published sandbox products, it takes an abstracted look at time and space in order to throw a lot of hooks -- even in interconnected bundles -- to "map out" a campaign place. It's a relationship map of people, places, and times all in one spot instead of the usual geographical map, who's who, and calendar spread. Useful as a GM overview from what I've seen so far.

Ok, so there seems to be different opinions about what a sandbox is. Is it just a bunch of premises on a map? Comparable to a computer game like Elder Scroll. Quest are just waiting till a player stumbles upon it. Or is it NPC's reacting on the moves the players make?

The Plot Point campaigns are just not fleshed out quests. Some are locations based (quest on planet Zumba), some are time based (after one month ingame), some are activation based (after you finished quest X) and some are a combination of those things.

It all becomes a little confusing. People are talking about Plot Point campaign. Some people are talking about it, while not knowing them well. Other people are talking about sandboxes, while disagreeing about it's definition. And then I bring in the World of Darkness as a possibility for either a sandbox or a Plot Point Campaign, while that very different from the usual way of GM'ing a game like that.

Ehhhhh...... I gotta think about getting this thread on track again.

Also, seriously some of the "plot points" are really really open to whatever the GM wants to do with them. While some are longer than others, there are some like the following:

Quote from: 50 Fathoms PPCWhaling
Begins in: Kaja, Arfk.

Bjorn Olafsson is keen to make some extra money and offers his service to any party planning on hunting norwhales. He is an experienced whaler, knows the local waters, and wants only a fair share of the profits in return for his services.

Bjorn: Typical Pirate with Throwing d8
and the Whaler Edge (page 195).

That is the entire written word about this "adventure". Yes, a large portion of them are longer, but they aren't railroad "every scene is set in stone" type things. They are adventure hooks with a few ideas of how things could play out, and the stats of any main players in it.

It's not all the stuff on the right that strikes me as "not what I want".  It's the stuff slammed against the left column.  You know, the core series of adventures that must be done in order.  And "core" is their word, *not* mine.

And yes, I know the GM can ignore them.  At which point they have no value.  That's like arguing that DragonLance isn't a railroad because the GM can ignore what's supposed to happen.

Quote from: robiswrong;738839It's not all the stuff on the right that strikes me as "not what I want".  It's the stuff slammed against the left column.  You know, the core series of adventures that must be done in order.  And "core" is their word, *not* mine.

And yes, I know the GM can ignore them.  At which point they have no value.  That's like arguing that DragonLance isn't a railroad because the GM can ignore what's supposed to happen.

I think nobody said the plot point campaigns were 100% sandbox. The original point I made was the PPC were looser than an average campaign, while not as loose as a sandbox. Ok, let's leave it at that.

I found two articles about this: sandbox with sign posts (http://shortymonster.co.uk/a-sandbox-with-sign-posts/) and lessons learned from savage worlds (http://flynnwd.blogspot.nl/2010/04/lessons-learned-from-savage-worlds-plot.html)

I also want to find out what a sandbox is.

Some people view it as a map with cities and villages on it and dungeons to explore. The players can wander around and stumble upon things. Much like an Elder Scrolls game really. To me this seems like a perfect fit for fantasy games. You just wander around in some forest and suddenly you find a dungeon with undead. Kill them all, loot the room, sell the shit at some town, buy some new shit (pants +1) and repeat all the same shit again. At least that's how I always played Warhammer FRPG. I actually got pretty bored with this stuff.

Other people view a sandbox as NPC's (or NPC factions) reacting towards the players actions. This seems more interesting to me. This also seems more appropriate for a World of Darkness game. Plenty of powermongering NPC's around and plenty of factions too.

So what is it? Or is it both?

*I have to admit that the Bloodlines video game was pretty sandbox as well. You were just walking around in LA stumbling on things to do.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738866I also want to find out what a sandbox is.

Some people view it as a map with cities and villages on it and dungeons to explore. The players can wander around and stumble upon things. Much like an Elder Scrolls game really. To me this seems like a perfect fit for fantasy games. You just wander around in some forest and suddenly you find a dungeon with undead. Kill them all, loot the room, sell the shit at some town, buy some new shit (pants +1) and repeat all the same shit again. At least that's how I always played Warhammer FRPG. I actually got pretty bored with this stuff.

Other people view a sandbox as NPC's (or NPC factions) reacting towards the players actions. This seems more interesting to me. This also seems more appropriate for a World of Darkness game. Plenty of powermongering NPC's around and plenty of factions too.

So what is it? Or is it both?

*I have to admit that the Bloodlines video game was pretty sandbox as well. You were just walking around in LA stumbling on things to do.

you are missing a number of points, based on the many times Rob, Beno, Estar, (myself) and the others have gone over this.  I don't blame you, but we need a better search function.

However, I'm drinking a nice 9 year old rioja after a hellish couple of weeks.  So I might do some of the heavy lifting later.

A nice start   http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html

from an early, illustrative argument...http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25668&page=17

http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design   look more at #3 and after...that is what you are missing, the actual living, moving setting world.  It is a sandbox because of the GM's allowance for the PC volition; their ability to do a think or interact with a thing without punishment or railroad, this does not, however, mean that actions or inactions do not have consequence.  The static world you describe above is not the vibrant place a sandbox should be.  
The Sandbox is a place of consequence, of player responsibility for their own decisions, and by that, the players run everything, the GM just plays the rich and deep reactions of the rest of the setting to the players actions.

Ah, that is clearer.

One thing: Encounters is something typical fantasy. If you do that in a modern city it might be a bunch of robbers in a dark alley, but you can't really killing people all the time. You might end up in jail doing life. And in case of vampire you might end up tied up on a building's roof for violating the Masquerade. Combat is generally quite scarce. Think the Godfather. All tension with rare sudden bursts of violence. So I don't really see that in the WoD. Although ... perhaps an angry ghoul, a rival vampire, ehhhh ... it shouldn't happen too often though.

The rest is all usable. Especially the Celtrica page. I read it more in detail tomorrow.

Is the Elder Scrolls a sandbox? I mean according to pc games theory it is. But according to tabletop theory it isn't. There aren't any consequences. The only thing that changes is your character (in strength mostly). I found the VtM Bloodlines game to have more consequences to your actions. That was one of the cool things of that game. And the investigation aspects. That game was what drew me into the WoD in the first place.

The fourth rule is what WoD naturally stimulates. So that doesn't need work. The third rule is the biggest difference. Actually I think in the older setting the Metaplot filled the part of the world in motion. Ok, I get back to this later.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738890Ah, that is clearer.

One thing: Encounters is something typical fantasy. If you do that in a modern city it might be a bunch of robbers in a dark alley, but you can't really killing people all the time. You might end up in jail doing life. And in case of vampire you might end up tied up on a building's roof for violating the Masquerade. Combat is generally quite scarce. Think the Godfather. All tension with rare sudden bursts of violence. So I don't really see that in the WoD. Although ... perhaps an angry ghoul, a rival vampire, ehhhh ... it shouldn't happen too often though.

The rest is all usable. Especially the Celtrica page. I read it more in detail tomorrow.

Is the Elder Scrolls a sandbox? I mean according to pc games theory it is. But according to tabletop theory it isn't. There aren't any consequences. The only thing that changes is your character (in strength mostly). I found the VtM Bloodlines game to have more consequences to your actions. That was one of the cool things of that game. And the investigation aspects. That game was what drew me into the WoD in the first place.

The fourth rule is what WoD naturally stimulates. So that doesn't need work. The third rule is the biggest difference. Actually I think in the older setting the Metaplot filled the part of the world in motion. Ok, I get back to this later.

My current online game has gone through 13 full group sessions and 22 intermezzo single sessions.  Only one sort of combat.

And yes, consequence and responsibilities are a necessary ingredient.  It is not just that the players can do anything; the world is still spinning, in motion, and the PCs must deal with the reactions of their choices.

Encounters is another word that has shifted over the years. Before it meant anything unknown and potentially altering to one's state, whether this be possible weather phenomena, unexpected new personality, or the traditionally assumed adequate challenge. An old AD&D 2e example pits a high level party versus: arguing amongst themselves, fighting a familiar battle against helplessly low-level orcs, looting amongst themselves, and mere observing a strange new weather phenom; only the weather phenom was an encounter.

What that means is shake up your viewpoint that cities need combat challenges to be encounters. Running IN SJG, I similarly deal with city campaign design and this mental shift has been one of my biggest allies. With people constantly about, and strangeness abounding from it, creating unknown and potentially changing experiences is a given.

So run a person that lasts longer than a passerby, like an alluring NPC, or one attracted to the PC's allure. Suddenly unexpected conversation becomes an encounter to deal with. Have a petty crime or casual kindness catch their eye. Have the sound of an argument or reckless driver rounding the corner. An unusual slice of beauty or ugliness, like new graffiti, or rogue placement of a bunch of flowers. These are things that players may pass up, but it is the details that breathe the world and the opportunity that assesses their pro-active focus.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738866I also want to find out what a sandbox is.

Some people view it as a map with cities and villages on it ......

Other people view a sandbox as NPC's (or NPC factions) .....

So what is it? Or is it both?

It is both and everything else. The hallmark of a sandbox campaign isn't its content or format (like a hexcrawl). It is the fact the players are the ones that set the direction of the campaign through their actions and interests.

One group may be interested in integrating themselves into the local gentry. In which case the referee is going to do a lot of prep on a web of social networks.

Another may want to wander and explore the landscape. In that case the referee will be doing a lot of mapping and detailing locales.

It is the ultimate expression of "You are a standing in front of a flight of stairs leading down to darkness". Most will immediately say "Oh but the referee expects the player to go down those stairs." And most would say the player will go down those stairs and they would be right.

But with a referee encouraging sandbox play, the player knows while he could walk down those stair, he could turn around and walk away. He could climb on top of and start digging. Or attempt anything else that he could do as his character.

It is the closest thing we have today to true virtual reality.

Quote from: Opaopajr;738933What that means is shake up your viewpoint that cities need combat challenges to be encounters. Running IN SJG, I similarly deal with city campaign design and this mental shift has been one of my biggest allies. With people constantly about, and strangeness abounding from it, creating unknown and potentially changing experiences is a given.

What's SJG?

Quote from: Opaopajr;738933So run a person that lasts longer than a passerby, like an alluring NPC, or one attracted to the PC's allure. Suddenly unexpected conversation becomes an encounter to deal with. Have a petty crime or casual kindness catch their eye. Have the sound of an argument or reckless driver rounding the corner. An unusual slice of beauty or ugliness, like new graffiti, or rogue placement of a bunch of flowers. These are things that players may pass up, but it is the details that breathe the world and the opportunity that assesses their pro-active focus.

These examples are very usuable and very WoD. I could do this. I can even use a lot of stuff that isn't really that out of the ordinary. Encounters could be a bike messenger passing by in a hurry or a salesman talking on the telephone or someone getting mugged.

Quote from: estar;738938It is both and everything else. The hallmark of a sandbox campaign isn't its content or format (like a hexcrawl). It is the fact the players are the ones that set the direction of the campaign through their actions and interests.

One group may be interested in integrating themselves into the local gentry. In which case the referee is going to do a lot of prep on a web of social networks.

Another may want to wander and explore the landscape. In that case the referee will be doing a lot of mapping and detailing locales.

It is the ultimate expression of "You are a standing in front of a flight of stairs leading down to darkness". Most will immediately say "Oh but the referee expects the player to go down those stairs." And most would say the player will go down those stairs and they would be right.

But with a referee encouraging sandbox play, the player knows while he could walk down those stair, he could turn around and walk away. He could climb on top of and start digging. Or attempt anything else that he could do as his character.

It is the closest thing we have today to true virtual reality.

Ok, so it is like the Elder Scroll only with a more dynamic world and consequences (also very WoD). I find the world in those games pretty static. Just a large collection of dungeons to me.

Btw, checking back on the Plot Point Campaign: It seems like it has some of the characteristics of a sandbox. But it also has some of the characteristics of a lineair campaign. It has a lot of unrelated quests, different locations and random encounters. I am not sure about the consequences, but they could be there. On the other hand there are some quest that together form a storyline with a beginning and an end.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738949Ok, so it is like the Elder Scroll only with a more dynamic world and consequences (also very WoD). I find the world in those games pretty static. Just a large collection of dungeons to me.

It was the designer of Elder Scroll choice. A tabletop sandbox campaign can be about anything and everything. The difference is the flexibility of the human referee.

I have run sandboxes with the same setting where

1)Players were all members of the mages guild
2) Players were all members of the thieves guild
3) Player were city guards.
4) Players were inhabitants of a small neighborhood in a much larger fantasy city (CSIO to be exact)

And campaigns where the character were freebooting adventurers ranging the landscape.

The content is not what defines a sandbox campaign. It is the ability of the players to set the course of the campaign that defines it. But the setting is not a tabla rosa only coming to life as the PCs interact with it. It has a life of it own with inhabitants doing their thing, and natural (or unnatural) events occurring through time.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738948What's SJG?

In Nomine by Steve Jackson Games. Derived from the In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas rpg from France. In overview they deal with roleplaying angels and demons, but in practice they run very differently. The French version is great for sardonic humor and quick random generation, off to create hijinks and have a quirky but rich attitude all its own. The American derivation notably could never get away with that level of irreverence, and ended up changing the character generation process into a more structured cohesion of archetypes, factions, and powers. I prefer the American version, IN SJG as I call it, because its "WW-esque clan mechanics" and open setting attitude works better for the games I want to run.

The French game makes a great unusual dish, as Benoist once said. The American game makes for a great Co-Op supermarket of unusual world ingredients, I'll say continuing the analogy. You just need to know something about cooking, world cuisine, kitchen discipline, and trusting your gut. Definitely not for everybody.

Quote from: estar;738953It was the designer of Elder Scroll choice. A tabletop sandbox campaign can be about anything and everything. The difference is the flexibility of the human referee.

Designer of Elder Scroll choice? You mean the programmers handed the choices to the players? In a way you can choose your own path and become a mage or a thief or a fighter in Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind. Only there are never people reacting to the things you did. You won't piss off the fighters guild if you did something to them. Or being chased by a group of Mages, because you stole their ancient relic. I think it's pretty static.

So in other words, no it isn't sandbox.

Quote from: estar;738953I have run sandboxes with the same setting where

1)Players were all members of the mages guild
2) Players were all members of the thieves guild
3) Player were city guards.
4) Players were inhabitants of a small neighborhood in a much larger fantasy city (CSIO to be exact)

And campaigns where the character were freebooting adventurers ranging the landscape.

The content is not what defines a sandbox campaign. It is the ability of the players to set the course of the campaign that defines it. But the setting is not a tabla rosa only coming to life as the PCs interact with it. It has a life of it own with inhabitants doing their thing, and natural (or unnatural) events occurring through time.

I get this vibe from Savage Worlds Hellfrost. Their are probably Knight Orders and Mercenary League fighting battles, while the Reliquery and the Lorekeepers are finding relics in ancient dungeon at the same time as we speak. Or Fading Suns.

Btw, I asked around on WW and yes, people do sandbox there. Mostly a bunch of NPC's and their goals and motivations clashing with the players goals and motivations.

I never looked at it like that, because most organisations in the WoD are like political parties. They don't really have a purpose, except ideology. They aren't functional organisations like a fighters guild, mage guild or thieves guild. You know what to expect if you join those. Thieves guilds steal. So burglary is logical. If you join the Charioteers in Fading Suns you know you are gonna be a trader. I can imagine what they do all day. I never really got that with the WoD. All the splats there have a vision and want that vision become reality. Usually through politics. In other words the setting never really came alive in my mind.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;739039Designer of Elder Scroll choice? You mean the programmers handed the choices to the players? In a way you can choose your own path and become a mage or a thief or a fighter in Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind. Only there are never people reacting to the things you did. You won't piss off the fighters guild if you did something to them. Or being chased by a group of Mages, because you stole their ancient relic. I think it's pretty static.

So in other words, no it isn't sandbox.
 

Exactly.  Player volition and the Setting's response to their choices are equally important.

Quote from: LordVreeg;739059Exactly.  Player volition and the Setting's response to their choices are equally important.

Yup.

"You can make any choice you want, but it doesn't matter" isn't agency.

I think plot is a poor pick for "the best of" literary inspiration to translate into a game.

Mike Singleton's The Lords of Midnight, a computer game originally released in 1984, wins comparisons to Tolkien's Ring trilogy -- but not for a plot line! What impresses people is:

1. the premise of an epic conflict
2. the interesting world
3. the vivid characters

There's a primary role in Prince Luxor, but his Moon Ring allows him to see through the eyes of his subordinates and direct them, so you get the scope of perspectives you get in a grand novel.

Unlike in a novel, Luxor's son Morkin is not guaranteed to steal and destroy the Ice Crown; he can easily die before reaching the tower where the Crown is kept. Neither is Luxor guaranteed to succeed in using diplomatic and military efforts to reverse the tide of invasion.

You can travel all over the map, reaping the consequences of whatever choices you make.

Heh, I asked around on the WW forum and a lot of people play sandboxes. Some books are designed to be sandboxed. The city books are political sandboxes and some of the new WoD supplements provide a playspace rather than a plot. One of the writers (actually the lead developer) sandboxes his personal game.

So ... I actually never really got that sandbox vibe out of the books, but ... I guess I am somehow pleased with it.

Edit:
I think the World in Motion aspect is really important for WoD games. So I think you can devide sandboxes as sandboxes with or without a world in motion. Skyrim is one without a world in motion for example.

Just adding one more thing:

Asking around at the Onyx Path forum I found out one of the developers uses political sandboxes. But that's only a list with NPC's and their relationships. Who likes who and who hates who and why. To me this is smaller in focus than goals and motivations.

So there are two things missing:

• The worldbuilding; the locations and corresponding plot hooks
• The NPC's aren't complete; they need motivations and goals as well

Quote from: jan paparazzi;740825Just adding one more thing:

Asking around at the Onyx Path forum I found out one of the developers uses political sandboxes. But that's only a list with NPC's and their relationships. Who likes who and who hates who and why. To me this is smaller in focus than goals and motivations.

So there are two things missing:

• The worldbuilding; the locations and corresponding plot hooks
• The NPC's aren't complete; they need motivations and goals as well

BTW, grasshopper, you are getting it.

Politics are even deeper in WiM.  look through this link (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955656/Igbar%2C%20Capital%20of%20Trabler), and te attached links, especially daily news...you should get the sense of velocity of time moving, woth weight and consequence....

opinions, positive and negative, are welcome, but it might be illuminating in places.

Quote from: LordVreeg;740947BTW, grasshopper, you are getting it.

Politics are even deeper in WiM.  look through this link (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955656/Igbar%2C%20Capital%20of%20Trabler), and te attached links, especially daily news...you should get the sense of velocity of time moving, woth weight and consequence....

opinions, positive and negative, are welcome, but it might be illuminating in places.

Grasshopper?:eek:
Ok, nice to know I am on the right track. I start reading now.
One question: Is this your own setting or is this supposed to be setting for another game?
For now I see a lot of things I also see in the city books of the WoD. Only thing I don't see in the new wod books is a timeline like this (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956420/Tale%20of%20Years). They usually leave this open in the new games, unlike the old games who had a (too) detailed timeline.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;741067Grasshopper?:eek:
Ok, nice to know I am on the right track. I start reading now.
One question: Is this your own setting or is this supposed to be setting for another game?
For now I see a lot of things I also see in the city books of the WoD. Only thing I don't see in the new wod books is a timeline like this (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956420/Tale%20of%20Years). They usually leave this open in the new games, unlike the old games who had a (too) detailed timeline.

My own.
But one of those areas that has been run consistently enough that it has been added to and added to enough that the feel of the political WiM is present, and that is what I was focusing on with this link, the feel of the populace created by the political movements and the actual politics themselves.

Quote from: LordVreeg;741086My own.
But one of those areas that has been run consistently enough that it has been added to and added to enough that the feel of the political WiM is present, and that is what I was focusing on with this link, the feel of the populace created by the political movements and the actual politics themselves.

Which parts are what you would call World in Motion? I see a setting, but I am not sure which parts are essential for a WiM.

There is one big difference I see with an average WoD setting and it is breadth. There are a lot of different regions and cities in this world and also a lot of different organisations. In a way similar to Savage Worlds Hellfrost. A kitchen sink fantasy RPG setting.

Don't expect 20 different organisations in a WoD city. Five or six, that's it. Plus, games are usually confined to one city. In the new WoD things are also more indivualized. No more group X thinks like this and acts like that.

Quote from: Opaopajr;738972In Nomine by Steve Jackson Games. Derived from the In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas rpg from France. In overview they deal with roleplaying angels and demons, but in practice they run very differently. The French version is great for sardonic humor and quick random generation, off to create hijinks and have a quirky but rich attitude all its own. The American derivation notably could never get away with that level of irreverence, and ended up changing the character generation process into a more structured cohesion of archetypes, factions, and powers. I prefer the American version, IN SJG as I call it, because its "WW-esque clan mechanics" and open setting attitude works better for the games I want to run.

The French game makes a great unusual dish, as Benoist once said. The American game makes for a great Co-Op supermarket of unusual world ingredients, I'll say continuing the analogy. You just need to know something about cooking, world cuisine, kitchen discipline, and trusting your gut. Definitely not for everybody.

Its a ridiculous example of a radical re-invention (and totally for the worse, i would say) masquerading as a "translation".  Its insane how different the two games are.

Quote from: RPGPundit;742089Its a ridiculous example of a radical re-invention (and totally for the worse, i would say) masquerading as a "translation".  Its insane how different the two games are.

They are very different, but it is "based from" and not so much a translation, as it readily admits in its own core. I personally found IN SJG the richer game for my needs, as I found INS/MV rather not to my tastes. Zany is nice, but a flexible atmosphere it really is not.

You're welcome to join my play by post on here whenever you like! :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;742091They are very different, but it is "based from" and not so much a translation, as it readily admits in its own core. I personally found IN SJG the richer game for my needs, as I found INS/MV rather not to my tastes. Zany is nice, but a flexible atmosphere it really is not.

You're welcome to join my play by post on here whenever you like! :)

I preferred SJG's version too. I liked the flexibility. I could do anything from Legion to Dogma in those rules so it had a great deal of replay value for the buck. Though the mechanics left something to be desired in places.

Quote from: RPGPundit;742089Its a ridiculous example of a radical re-invention (and totally for the worse, i would say) masquerading as a "translation".  Its insane how different the two games are.

The original is such, such a GREAT game. One of my favorite RPGs of all time, actually.

Quote from: Benoist;742172The original is such, such a GREAT game. One of my favorite RPGs of all time, actually.

Its pretty cool; of course, its got a heavy dose of (black) humour.  The SJG version seems, to me, just a bad rip-off of a WW game.

Anyways, this topic would be better served as a separate thread!

RPGPundit