TheRPGSite

A pure sandbox is first and foremost about the DIY ethic. The original Blackmoor and the original Greyhawk were the template for what a pure sandbox game is. Arneson and Gygax created their own worlds and designed everything. A little later in the process Gygax invited Kuntz in as a co-ref and their each designed their parts of the pure sandbox. These are the original examples. So when you go out and buy a setting/world/module that someone else did you do not have a pure sandbox. You then have a hybrid game that is only possibly partially a sandbox here and there part of the time.

This is all established fact. It is established by the quotes about the founders who were (slight paraphrase) "amazed that anyone would want us to do their imagining for them." If you are really an old school ref, creating and designing your world is a huge part of the fun. Again this is all established fact.

Quote from: soltakss;983633But the idea that every sandbox is a blank piece of paper until the PCs go somewhere and do something just doesn't make sense to me. I like the idea of a living world, where things happen independently of the PCs, sometimes they intersect the PCs, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the PCs deliberately interact with what is going on around them, sometimes they don't.

But I have never said this, a pure sandbox does not start off for the players as a blank piece of paper. A pure sandbox is a living world created by an old school referee, so the players start in the middle of an area usually a town that they know certain things about and the further away it is the less they know. Now they may of heard of the Great Falls or the Green Mountains or the Endless Sea but they would know much beyond the name the general direction and old legends or tales (often they will know less than this). At this point they have spent time getting together the resources to go adventuring, they have been listening to rumors, news and stories the older men tell and they choose what they want to pursue. The blank sheet of paper comes in when they go off the prepared map. Then you go to create on the fly game, the real proof of the pudding as to whether you are more than average and the real test of your level of excellence as a ref. If you can create on the fly and keep your players on the edge of their seats then you are at worst well above average and may well  be excellent. On the fly is the ultimate refereeing experience, that is transcendent joy!

To create the living world you draw on all your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced) and your imagination (creation of new material that goes beyond your knowledge into a whole new magical realm). Anything else is not a pure sandbox and that is OK, not everyone is capable of doing this, but many are. Many though claim and preach that no one is capable of doing this and that is simply not true, it is the most evil lie ever told in the realm of OD&D. If someone tells you that you and your friends are not capable of creating a living world, then they should be dead to you, because they are a negative influence.


Edit: If you are reading this for the first time, please read it again before continuing. Since most of what I am getting is not based on what I wrote.

I personally have never claimed GMs werent capable of playing this way. I have experienced these kinds of games on both sides of the GM screen many times. The only comment I have ever made regarding what you describe is that in my opinion in all but the most rare of circumstances when the game 'moves off the prepared map' as you say, it loses something in quality. I find it very hard to believe that almost any GM can run a 'on the fly' game with the same degree of depth, detail, color and diversity that even a bit of forethought and planning would have provided. For this reason I shy from supposed "Sandbox" games as Ive witnessed this drop off in quality several times, even by experienced GMs, and havent been impressed. Generic, or worse ridiculously random, elements conjured up on the spur of the moment are usually painfully obvious.

Sounds bad but I prefer a well planned and fully detailed train ride any day.

Now that is based purely on your description of Sandbox and might change with another perception.

DiY does not equal Sandbox and vice versa. As for Blackmoor and Greyhawk both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax drew heavily on what published about the myth and legends of the world. And we know both also drew on their favorite films of the era.

In short every referee has their inspirations and the fact that it may been published for tabletop roleplaying doesn't make more or less pure. It what one does with the material that makes a sandbox campaign (or a railroad, etc.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;983659I personally have never claimed GMs werent capable of playing this way. I have experienced these kinds of games on both sides of the GM screen many times. The only comment I have ever made regarding what you describe is that in my opinion in all but the most rare of circumstances when the game 'moves off the prepared map' as you say, it loses something in quality. I find it very hard to believe that almost any GM can run a 'on the fly' game with the same degree of depth, detail, color and diversity that even a bit of forethought and planning would have provided. For this reason I shy from supposed "Sandbox" games as Ive witnessed this drop off in quality several times, even by experienced GMs, and havent been impressed. Generic, or worse ridiculously random, elements conjured up on the spur of the moment are usually painfully obvious.

Sounds bad but I prefer a well planned and fully detailed train ride any day.

Now that is based purely on your description of Sandbox and might change with another perception.

f toster is the primary proponent of no one is capable of playing this way.

As for dropoff a lot of that has to do with how well the referee knows his world one year into the campaign will not be equal to the 43rd year into the campaign. Does the ref have easily accessible notes with names and other info that has been unused and can easily be used at this time. For instance, the only thing I find difficult is coming up with names quickly. So I have hundreds of names (people, places, things) right at my fingers tips, no more problem.

if I want to play on a railroad, I play a board game.

Quote from: Omega;983663Because real sanboxes have limits. I kid you not.

Real sandboxes do not have limits, I kid you not!

Did you really just use the phrase 'most evil lie' in respect of a game?

On point much like Estar says I guarantee that you can pick apart any sandbox setting and find nuggets of plagiarised material. Whether from history, literature or other games (RPG or otherwise).

Your trying to apply a ridiculous level of purism to gaming.

Gygax and Arneson were inventing the game.  There wasn't reams of pre made scenarios for them to potentially incorporate into their sandboxes until they started producing them.  That said, I'm pretty sure both of them drew up some maps and came up with some material prior to actually sitting down at the game table every given session.

Quote from: estar;983664As for Blackmoor and Greyhawk both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax drew heavily on what published about the myth and legends of the world. And we know both also drew on their favorite films of the era.

In short every referee has their inspirations and the fact that it may been published for tabletop roleplaying doesn't make more or less pure. It what one does with the material that makes a sandbox campaign (or a railroad, etc.)

Yeah I said that, when I said above in the first post that

QuoteTo create the living world you draw on all your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced) and your imagination (creation of new material that goes beyond your knowledge into a whole new magical realm).

In what possible use of the English language would that not include myths and legends? I clearly said that I use myth, legends, folktales, fairy tales and going beyond that the whole realm of fiction and non-fiction. Again

Quoteall your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced)

.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983669f toster is the primary proponent of no one is capable of playing this way.

As for dropoff a lot of that has to do with how well the referee knows his world one year into the campaign will not be equal to the 43rd year into the campaign. Does the ref have easily accessible notes with names and other info that has been unused and can easily be used at this time. For instance, the only thing I find difficult is coming up with names quickly. So I have hundreds of names (people, places, things) right at my fingers tips, no more problem.

if I want to play on a railroad, I play a board game.

impurity, thy name is Crimhthan!  lol

Quote from: HorusArisen;983674Did you really just use the phrase 'most evil lie' in respect of a game?

On point much like Estar says I guarantee that you can pick apart any sandbox setting and find nuggets of plagiarised material. Whether from history, literature or other games (RPG or otherwise).

This is again just a slander and misrepresentation of what I said. Go back and read my first post I said

QuoteTo create the living world you draw on all your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced) and your imagination (creation of new material that goes beyond your knowledge into a whole new magical realm).

Using all those sources is what I said to do, now I did not suggest that you plagiarize it, you don't do that you create your inspired brand new material. I never advised anyone to plagiarize. Now I do admit that many do plagiarize, I do not, I create original inspired material.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983674Your trying to apply a ridiculous level of purism to gaming.

No I am just making a distinction between good, better and best. If you like mediocre, then that likely explains why you are offended.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983682impurity, thy name is Crimhthan!  lol

Did someone rattle your chain? What in the quoted statement would engender such an insult. Are you fevered this morning?

Quote from: estar;983664DiY does not equal Sandbox and vice versa.

DIY does equal a Pure Sandbox. If you want to talk about something other than a pure sandbox go for it.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983689DIY does equal a Pure Sandbox. If you want to talk about something other than a pure sandbox go for it.

What if I make a DIY railroad adventure with a script?

Quote from: Crimhthan;983684This is again just a slander and misrepresentation of what I said. Go back and read my first post I said  Using all those sources is what I said to do, now I did not suggest that you plagiarize it, you don't do that you create your inspired brand new material. I never advised anyone to plagiarize. Now I do admit that many do plagiarize, I do not, I create original inspired material.


No I am just making a distinction between good, better and best. If you like mediocre, then that likely explains why you are offended.

Still seeing the phrase 'Many though claim and preach that no one is capable of doing this and that is simply not true, it is the most evil lie ever told in the realm of OD&D.'

So what's the difference between Giggles and Arenot or Kuntz (already funny) working together to people using other published works to supplement their sandbox.

So any way but your pure way is mediocre? Must be why no one else will game, their all waiting for a slot in your group. I'll just have to settle for my group of amateur gamers mostly story telling about railroads...choo choo.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983676Gygax and Arneson were inventing the game.  There wasn't reams of pre made scenarios for them to potentially incorporate into their sandboxes until they started producing them.  That said, I'm pretty sure both of them drew up some maps and came up with some material prior to actually sitting down at the game table every given session.

Of course they created their own materials (maps and stuff) before they started playing, I never said otherwise. Here, since you didn't bother to read my first post, I will repeat the quote for you. Try reading it this time and you will find out I said what you just said.

Quote a pure sandbox does not start off for the players as a blank piece of paper. A pure sandbox is a living world created by an old school referee, so the players start in the middle of an area usually a town that they know certain things about and the further away it is the less they know. Now they may of heard of the Great Falls or the Green Mountains or the Endless Sea but they would know much beyond the name the general direction and old legends or tales (often they will know less than this). At this point they have spent time getting together the resources to go adventuring, they have been listening to rumors, news and stories the older men tell and they choose what they want to pursue. The blank sheet of paper comes in when they go off the prepared map. Then you go to create on the fly game, the real proof of the pudding as to whether you are more than average and the real test of your level of excellence as a ref. If you can create on the fly and keep your players on the edge of their seats then you are at worst well above average and may well be excellent. On the fly is the ultimate refereeing experience, that is transcendent joy!

Also there are many quotes by both Gygax and Arneson that makes it clear they would not have lifted someone module and plopped in into their game. You want to yell at me go ahead, but try reading what I said first, not what you assume I said.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983690What if I make a DIY railroad adventure with a script?

Then that is what you would have, that is what module writer do, create their own railroads, the writer writing the railroad is DIY and made a deliberate decision to make it a railroad, when some else buys that and uses it, it is not DIY for that customer.

Hey bro, you're taking RPGs too seriously. This is just Let's Pretend fot adults.

Quote from: Itachi;983696Hey bro, you're taking RPGs too seriously. This is just Let's Pretend fot adults.

Only if it's the one true way. Otherwise it's storytelling blasphemy!

Quote from: HorusArisen;983691Still seeing the phrase 'Many though claim and preach that no one is capable of doing this and that is simply not true, it is the most evil lie ever told in the realm of OD&D.'

Telling people that they are not capable of doing original design is an evil lie, but only in terms of the realm of the game, as opposed to the world outside the game. I was making a distinction that it is not the most evil lie in terms of the world we live in with terrorism and other things, but only in terms of the realm of the game. Sorry you did not understand how I limited the scope of what I was talking about.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983691So what's the difference between Giggles and Arenot or Kuntz (already funny) working together to people using other published works to supplement their sandbox.

They were doing original work, using someone else module is not original work, this is a really simple "original vs using a module." I am sorry if you can't understand it, I don't know anyway to dumb it down more than I already have.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983691So anyway but your way is mediocre? Must be why no one else will game, their all waiting for a slot in your group. I'll just have yo settle for my group of amateur gamers.

I never said that. Are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying or are you just stupid?

QuoteNo I am just making a distinction between good, better and best. If you like mediocre, then that likely explains why you are offended.

So (to dumb this down for you) you go watch ten different games in progress. They range from excellent to mediocre all along the spectrum from good to bad. Most of us would prefer to play in the games that are above average or better. Some people, like yourself, believe that all games by all referee should be viewed as equal and no distinction made. The only people that don't like value judgment to be made are those that are mired in mediocrity.  I did not say that mine was the best of all, I did say that some games are way better than other. That is a fact, sorry reality is slapping you in the face.

I also made a distinction between a pure sandbox and other ways to do it. IMO a pure sandbox is the best, that does not in anyway say that other way are mediocre, that is an unwarranted conclusion that you eagerly jumped to. I've noticed that you folks do that a lot, is it required to be a member?

Quote from: Crimhthan;983678Yeah I said that, when I said above in the first post that
In what possible use of the English language would that not include myths and legends? I clearly said that I use myth, legends, folktales, fairy tales and going beyond that the whole realm of fiction and non-fiction. Again .

My point is that that nothing makes them more pure than using a Forgotten Realms Guide published in 2003. Dave Arneson directly lifted from the Hammer Horror films that were quite recent relative to the early 70s. And then there was Jason and the Argonaut that despite being based on the myth is pretty much is own thing because of the wonderful Harryhausen animation. The same with the Sinbad movies.  It all grist for the mill.

Furthermore what you do don't understand is that is that people think differently about this stuff.  That to handle things naturally on a ad-hoc basis is different for different folks. Nobody is going to run a campaign like I do. But people find elements what I do useful to incorporate in the way they do things. And what important is that they are aware of the need to keep searching and learning. Something that is polar opposite of what you advocate as part of pure sandbox campaign.

Indeed you are missing the point of the earliest days by advocating anything that is pure. The lesson to be drawn from what Arneson and Gygax did  is to define what kind of campaign you and your group wants to play, then assemble what you need from whatever source that works and above all FUCKING FUN TO PLAY. If you want to run a sandbox then be willing to let the players attempt whatever they want to do to trash the setting and handle it fairly.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983689DIY does equal a Pure Sandbox. If you want to talk about something other than a pure sandbox go for it.

You do realize that a referee can write their own railroaded adventure path as easily as buying one from Paizo. All adventure paths started out with some author "doing it themselves". The difference is we see some on the store shelves.

Quote from: estar;983647He talking out of his ass.

Said the mule of the donkey.;)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983690What if I make a DIY railroad adventure with a script?

According to one of the new definitions of sandbox... That is a sandbox.

Quote from: estar;983707My point is that that nothing makes them more pure than using a Forgotten Realms Guide published in 2003. Dave Arneson directly lifted from the Hammer Horror films that were quite recent relative to the early 70s. And then there was Jason and the Argonaut that despite being based on the myth is pretty much is own thing because of the wonderful Harryhausen animation. The same with the Sinbad movies.  It all grist for the mill.

Furthermore what you do don't understand is that is that people think differently about this stuff.  That to handle things naturally on a ad-hoc basis is different for different folks. Nobody is going to run a campaign like I do. But people find elements what I do useful to incorporate in the way they do things. And what important is that they are aware of the need to keep searching and learning. Something that is polar opposite of what you advocate as part of pure sandbox campaign.

Indeed you are missing the point of the earliest days by advocating anything that is pure. The lesson to be drawn from what Arneson and Gygax did  is to define what kind of campaign you and your group wants to play, then assemble what you need from whatever source that works and above all FUCKING FUN TO PLAY. If you want to run a sandbox then be willing to let the players attempt whatever they want to do to trash the setting and handle it fairly.

Yes do anything that works for you, just don't be deceitful about what it is. Using this as inspiration

QuoteDave Arneson directly lifted from the Hammer Horror films that were quite recent relative to the early 70s. And then there was Jason and the Argonaut that despite being based on the myth is pretty much is own thing because of the wonderful Harryhausen animation. The same with the Sinbad movies.

you can call that original. Using Forgotten Realms Guide, if they told you where they got the inspiration then go back to those and do you own thing. If you want to use a tertiary source like Forgotten Realms and copy it, then don't pretend you are doing something original.
Because

QuoteDave Arneson directly lifted from the Hammer Horror films that were quite recent relative to the early 70s. And then there was Jason and the Argonaut that despite being based on the myth is pretty much is own thing because of the wonderful Harryhausen animation. The same with the Sinbad movies.

are not game materials written for a game. Anything you do with them will be original. But Forgotten realms material was written for a game, the original sources were already ported into game terms, now you are just copying someone else that already did the fun part.

I did not miss the point at all, the point was to take non game stuff and use it to inspire you game. Time after time they were quoted as being incredulous that someone would want someone else to do the creative part for them. That is the point or one them. The other point is this

QuoteIf you want to run a sandbox then be willing to let the players attempt whatever they want to do to trash the setting and handle it fairly

I have always in every post agreed with this. Although what you call "trash the setting" I consider standard normal play.

Man your a funny dude and you reinterpret your own absolutes which is even more funny

Gorebox using Archibalds work is original. Mine using say Estars isn't?

Your not saying anyone else's way of playing is mediocre when it differs from yours? Might want to go back and read your own posts.

Your pure sandbox does not exist.

It's not even your opinions I'm finding funny it's the white sheet wearing absolute way you voice them.

If your not derailing threads carry on my ducky friend, I might not agree with you (on pretty much anything) but your entertaining.

Quote from: estar;983708You do realize that a referee can write their own railroaded adventure path as easily as buying one from Paizo. All adventure paths started out with some author "doing it themselves". The difference is we see some on the store shelves.

And most do nothing but railroads, but not everyone likes a railroad, I speak for the minority that wants to maximize their fun by not getting on a one way railroad. Granted most players started after the railroad way became standard industry practice and  have probably never played anything that is not a railroad, so they do have a legitimate excuse for not knowing there is a way to have a lot more fun.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983712Man your a funny dude and you reinterpret your own absolutes which is even more funny

Gorebox using Archibalds work is original. Mine using say Estars isn't?

Your not saying anyone else's way of playing is mediocre when it differs from yours? Might want to go back and read your own posts.

Your pure sandbox does not exist.

It's not even your opinions I'm finding funny it's the white sheet wearing absolute way you voice them.

If your not derailing threads carry on my ducky friend, I might not agree with you (on pretty much anything) but your entertaining.

If it weren't for the hateful white sheet reference I would almost think you were on the verge of saying something nice.

Why did anybody even RESPOND to the original post?

(nah, let the guy write. I don't have a good laugh like this for ages :D)

Hey Crimh, what about opening a church? The Church of Pure Sandbox. How it sounds? You could open each session with a sermon or something.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651A pure sandbox is first and foremost about the DIY ethic. The original Blackmoor and the original Greyhawk were the template for what a pure sandbox game is. Arneson and Gygax created their own worlds and designed everything. A little later in the process Gygax invited Kuntz in as a co-ref and their each designed their parts of the pure sandbox. These are the original examples. So when you go out and buy a setting/world/module that someone else did you do not have a pure sandbox. You then have a hybrid game that is only possibly partially a sandbox here and there part of the time.

This is all established fact. It is established by the quotes about the founders who were (slight paraphrase) "amazed that anyone would want us to do their imagining for them." If you are really an old school ref, creating and designing your world is a huge part of the fun. Again this is all established fact.

You seem to have little understanding of how imagination works. It isn't something that is achieved by working in bare-walled, empty room in isolation. Imaginative people voraciously consume the ideas of others to feed their imagination. Gygax made a sandbox, but it had races from Tolkien, monsters from mythology and plastic toys, magic from Vance, undead hunters from Hammer horror films and an area of Castle Greyhawk from Lewis Carroll. Gygax even included an appendix in the Dungeon Master's Guide directing you to books that you could take ideas from. By your definition, Greyhawk isn't a sandbox because it has a Jabberwocky in it.


A "pure' imagination is an empty one. Imagination is a stew and a pure stew untainted by other sources is just a pot of simmering water.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983719If it weren't for the hateful white sheet reference I would almost think you were on the verge of saying something nice.

I was but sarcasm is genetic to my entire family line.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983728Why did anybody even RESPOND to the original post?

Because people are gluttons for punishment, or they don't get that they are feeding the beast.

Edit: oh, and now we're guilty too. :p

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983728Why did anybody even RESPOND to the original post?

As long as it's in his own threads it's an exercise in extreme alternative thinking and never bad to have some discussions along that line.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983728Why did anybody even RESPOND to the original post?

Because, just because ...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983728Why did anybody even RESPOND to the original post?

You are looking for this thread http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37443-Seven-Voyages-of-Zylarthen-Champions-of-Zed-and-Treasure-Hunters-possibly-more

I prefer natural beach-sand. Of course if you live near LA you'll have to be particular and sift out shards of glass, needles, and trash. Orange County beach-sand is perfect for a sandbox, just don't get arrested.

And fuck you if you try to use those Kidfettie Play-Pellets instead of real sand. GTFO with that shit.

Quote from: Baulderstone;983744You seem to have little understanding of how imagination works. It isn't something that is achieved by working in bare-walled, empty room in isolation. Imaginative people voraciously consume the ideas of others to feed their imagination. Gygax made a sandbox, but it had races from Tolkien, monsters from mythology and plastic toys, magic from Vance, undead hunters from Hammer horror films and an area of Castle Greyhawk from Lewis Carroll. Gygax even included an appendix in the Dungeon Master's Guide directing you to books that you could take ideas from. By your definition, Greyhawk isn't a sandbox because it has a Jabberwocky in it.


A "pure' imagination is an empty one. Imagination is a stew and a pure stew untainted by other sources is just a pot of simmering water.

Since you did not read the OP I will repeat part of it here for you,

QuoteTo create the living world you draw on all your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced) and your imagination (creation of new material that goes beyond your knowledge into a whole new magical realm).

Shame you didn't bother to read what I said before you jumped in and said how imagination works and in the process you agreed with me.

What part of "you draw on all your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced) and your imagination (creation of new material that goes beyond your knowledge into a whole new magical realm)" did you not understand?

1. It isn't something that is achieved by working in bare-walled, empty room in isolation. Since I did not say or imply any such thing, I agree. You would have understood that I agree if you had bothered to read what I posted.
2. Imaginative people voraciously consume the ideas of others to feed their imagination. Yeah, that is what I said.
3. Gygax made a sandbox, but it had races from Tolkien, monsters from mythology and plastic toys, magic from Vance, undead hunters from Hammer horror films and an area of Castle Greyhawk from Lewis Carroll. Gygax even included an appendix in the Dungeon Master's Guide directing you to books that you could take ideas from.  I agree with all of that since I did not say or imply otherwise. You would have understood that I agree if you had bothered to read what I posted
4. By your definition, Greyhawk isn't a sandbox because it has a Jabberwocky in it. No that is not correct, you failed to read and understand my definition.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983746I was but sarcasm is genetic to my entire family line.

Thank you!

Whilst I am truly honoured to have been the ppst to spark off this new round of madness, I have included the full post.

Quote from: soltakss

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

And this is what I hate about Sandbox discussions.

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

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

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

So, I was just amazed that using others matrials was considered bad. Admittedly, if you wrote your sandbox yourself and did not use anyone else's material, then it would be a DIY Sandbox, but you seemed to be implying that everyhting had to be new. If that was not the case then I apologise for misunderstanding. It is sometimes difficult to tease the meaning out of the rants.

Now, I don't like the He Said, I Said, He Said, I Said arguments, but ...

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651A pure sandbox is first and foremost about the DIY ethic.

Are you saying Sandbox <=> DIY, so, a Sandbox if, and only if DIY? Or are you saying Sandbox implies DIY but DIY does not imply Sandbox? I am confused. I could write a railroaded scenario myself and put it into my own Sandbox

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651The original Blackmoor and the original Greyhawk were the template for what a pure sandbox game is. Arneson and Gygax created their own worlds and designed everything. A little later in the process Gygax invited Kuntz in as a co-ref and their each designed their parts of the pure sandbox. These are the original examples. So when you go out and buy a setting/world/module that someone else did you do not have a pure sandbox. You then have a hybrid game that is only possibly partially a sandbox here and there part of the time.

So, Arneson running something by Gygax would not be a true Sandbox, in your opinion?

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651This is all established fact. It is established by the quotes about the founders who were (slight paraphrase) "amazed that anyone would want us to do their imagining for them." If you are really an old school ref, creating and designing your world is a huge part of the fun. Again this is all established fact.

I am not sure about fact.

Does everything have to be completely made up and new? Most stories and settings owe something to someone else.

I like Historical games, particularly Medieval or Dark Ages. If I run a game in Sherwood Forest and meet Robyn Hode, is that a Sandbox? What if I based everything on medieval ballads, does that invalidate what I am doing?

Some of the best Sandboxes I have played in are commercial ones. Balazar, Prax and Dorastor, in Glorantha, are excellent Sandboxes, with places and NPCs sketched out but loads of fun things to do and people to see.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651But I have never said this, a pure sandbox does not start off for the players as a blank piece of paper. A pure sandbox is a living world created by an old school referee, so the players start in the middle of an area usually a town that they know certain things about and the further away it is the less they know. Now they may of heard of the Great Falls or the Green Mountains or the Endless Sea but they would know much beyond the name the general direction and old legends or tales (often they will know less than this). At this point they have spent time getting together the resources to go adventuring, they have been listening to rumors, news and stories the older men tell and they choose what they want to pursue. The blank sheet of paper comes in when they go off the prepared map. Then you go to create on the fly game, the real proof of the pudding as to whether you are more than average and the real test of your level of excellence as a ref. If you can create on the fly and keep your players on the edge of their seats then you are at worst well above average and may well  be excellent. On the fly is the ultimate refereeing experience, that is transcendent joy!

So, you are happy with preparing places and NPCs before the game starts?

What about preparing scenarios before you start? Is that OK, or do you just have situations that might happen?

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651To create the living world you draw on all your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced) and your imagination (creation of new material that goes beyond your knowledge into a whole new magical realm). Anything else is not a pure sandbox and that is OK, not everyone is capable of doing this, but many are. Many though claim and preach that no one is capable of doing this and that is simply not true, it is the most evil lie ever told in the realm of OD&D. If someone tells you that you and your friends are not capable of creating a living world, then they should be dead to you, because they are a negative influence.

Anyone can create things. It's called making it up. I make things up all the while, but I prefer to do it in someone else's environment. Clearly, this makes me inferior to you and I accept that.

I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than inventing everything myself.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651Edit: If you are reading this for the first time, please read it again before continuing. Since most of what I am getting is not based on what I wrote.

I have read it several times and understand everything.

However, there is a big difference between understanding what you are saying and agreeing with what you are saying.

Some GMs like to build a world that has all kinds of very interesting NPCs and events and quests going on in it. Then run a 4-hour game where the players are hex-crawling through a trap-filled sewer and never get to see any of said created world.

Nearly all players don't care if a setting is sand-boxed or not when a game uses a leveling-up system. All that matters to them is leveling-up.

"No one is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart: for his purity, by definition, is unassailable." - James Baldwin, Nobody Knows My Name

Quote from: estar;983707My point is that that nothing makes them more pure than using a Forgotten Realms Guide published in 2003.

Some of us scum even use Rob Conley's sections from the Wilderlands of High Fantasy Box Set (2005) for our blasphemous Pseudo-Sandboxing! :D

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;983822Some GMs like to build a world that has all kinds of very interesting NPCs and events and quests going on in it. Then run a 4-hour game where the players are hex-crawling through a trap-filled sewer and never get to see any of said created world.

Nearly all players don't care if a setting is sand-boxed or not when a game uses a leveling-up system. All that matters to them is leveling-up.

Never get to see any of said created world or never choose to see it?  In a sandbox, the players choose to go through the sewer if they want to right?

I like D&D - a leveling up system.  I also care if a setting is a sandbox since that's the sort of game I want to play.  Leveling up isn't the only thing that matters to me when I'm playing...

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;983822Some GMs like to build a world that has all kinds of very interesting NPCs and events and quests going on in it. Then run a 4-hour game where the players are hex-crawling through a trap-filled sewer and never get to see any of said created world.

Some people like world building like myself. The advice I have when it comes to actual play is to ask yourself is how much of your, the referee, limited verbal bandwidth is needed to explain it. If the answer is little or none, then enjoy the worldbuilding for yourself.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;983822Nearly all players don't care if a setting is sand-boxed or not when a game uses a leveling-up system. All that matters to them is leveling-up.

In your limited experience perhaps, in my limited experience it otherwise. My interactions with others in the hobby suggest  that the reality is as diverse as people playing.

Quote from: S'mon;983832Some of us scum even use Rob Conley's sections from the Wilderlands of High Fantasy Box Set (2005) for our blasphemous Pseudo-Sandboxing! :D

Nice to see something using it.
:D

Quote from: Dumarest;983825"No one is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart: for his purity, by definition, is unassailable." - James Baldwin, Nobody Knows My Name

With the secondary function that everyone else, is.  Who else lives up to the standard of mighty Crimhthan?  Next to no one; but those who don't push back are tolerated.  

It's so much easier to make thousands of posts on internet forums with your left hand, while running thousands of amazing sandbox sessions comprised of pure DIY-goodness with your right hand, than it is to right-click convert any of these works to PDFs and upload them to RPGNow or Lulu.  

But verily, how could anyone stop to do such trivial things when they're blessed with powerball-odds-like circumstances of nearly a dozen childhood friends all staying in the same location for nearly 70 years, and interesting their families in a multi-generational campaign?  

None of you have earned the right to skepticism - excuse me; I mean SLANDER - of the mighty Crimhthan.  Hallowed be his advice and words of wisdom.  (Note: I'm using the 2nd definition for "hallowed" when googling it; not the first)

Quote from: EOTB;983848It's so much easier to make thousands of posts on internet forums with your left hand, while running thousands of amazing sandbox sessions comprised of pure DIY-goodness with your right hand, than it is to right-click convert any of these works to PDFs and upload them to RPGNow or Lulu.  

But verily, how could anyone stop to do such trivial things when they're blessed with powerball-odds-like circumstances of nearly a dozen childhood friends all staying in the same location for nearly 70 years, and interesting their families in a multi-generational campaign?  

Funny thing is, at first I said sure, maybe he really is 80 and has been playing D&D since 1974, but the more he posts the less likely it seems. The credibility has stretched to point of snapping.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;983822Some GMs like to build a world that has all kinds of very interesting NPCs and events and quests going on in it. Then run a 4-hour game where the players are hex-crawling through a trap-filled sewer and never get to see any of said created world.

Nearly all players don't care if a setting is sand-boxed or not when a game uses a leveling-up system. All that matters to them is leveling-up.

Any chance you could make a YouTube video of this? Preferably with many other generalizations based on nothing but your personal biases.

Quote from: soltakss;983812Whilst I am truly honoured to have been the post to spark off this new round of madness, I have included the full post.

I thought your post made a great starting point.

Quote from: soltakss;983812So, I was just amazed that using others matrials was considered bad. Admittedly, if you wrote your sandbox yourself and did not use anyone else's material, then it would be a DIY Sandbox, but you seemed to be implying that everyhting had to be new. If that was not the case then I apologise for misunderstanding. It is sometimes difficult to tease the meaning out of the rants.

I consider that a pure sandbox is a DIY sandbox. If I read Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson and use those ideas for my sandbox, pure sandbox, if you write a setting based on that and I use your setting, that may be a sandbox but in relation to me it is not a pure sandbox because it is not my work and my creation, it would be a pure sandbox for you.
Now I can accept that there are other types of sandboxes other than a pure DIY sandbox, but that is not what I was wanting to discuss. Is it bad to your others stuff, no not at all. I am just saying that the example of Arneson and Gygax and the expectation of Arneson and Gygax is that everyone would do it the themselves the same way they were for the fun of doing it. There are many quotes out there that make it clear that it never crossed their minds in the early days that anyone would want someone else to do it for them, they didn't understand that at all until thousands of letters finally drove the point home that most people were not like them.

Quote from: soltakss;983812Are you saying Sandbox <=> DIY, so, a Sandbox if, and only if DIY? Or are you saying Sandbox implies DIY but DIY does not imply Sandbox? I am confused. I could write a railroaded scenario myself and put it into my own Sandbox.

For my premise of a Pure Sandbox following the initial example and initial expectation of Gygax and Arneson and what they thought would happen then yes Sandbox <=> DIY. Like I said about maybe there are other kinds of Sandbox that do not involve DIY. DIY does not always imply Sandbox, you could as you state write a railroaded scenario to use, I don't know why you would do that but you could.

Quote from: soltakss;983812So, Arneson running something by Gygax would not be a true Sandbox, in your opinion?

As a pure sandbox, that is correct. Like I said, if you want to define other types of sandboxes go ahead.

Quote from: soltakss;983812Does everything have to be completely made up and new? Most stories and settings owe something to someone else.

I like Historical games, particularly Medieval or Dark Ages. If I run a game in Sherwood Forest and meet Robyn Hode, is that a Sandbox? What if I based everything on medieval ballads, does that invalidate what I am doing?

All settings owe something to all the influences both conscious and uncounscious, that is a given. So you can base it on any time period you want or a particular work of fiction. I have not said otherwise anywhere. As long as you are using something that is not already converted to game terms it is new, if you are copying someone else's conversion it is not new but it may be a good way to learn how to do it yourself by looking at what other people of done. But for your final state for your players DIY is better than copying IMO, but that may be all you have time to do.

Quote from: soltakss;983812Some of the best Sandboxes I have played in are commercial ones. Balazar, Prax and Dorastor, in Glorantha, are excellent Sandboxes, with places and NPCs sketched out but loads of fun things to do and people to see.

Sounds like they succeeded with the product, I hope it inspires to you do something completely your own, if it is not until you retire and have more time.

Quote from: soltakss;983812So, you are happy with preparing places and NPCs before the game starts?
What about preparing scenarios before you start? Is that OK, or do you just have situations that might happen?

I prepare ahead of time places, NPCs, situations etc, but the interaction with the PCs is not determined until play happens. I also have prepared things that have not been placed so that I can use them if the players go outside the prepared areas. But in that event, I often have ideas that I just run with it. On the fly I can describe things down to fine detail if needed.

Quote from: soltakss;983812Anyone can create things. It's called making it up. I make things up all the while, but I prefer to do it in someone else's environment. Clearly, this makes me inferior to you and I accept that.
I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than inventing everything myself.

No, not inferior, different. If you mean you like to use someone else's campaign setting for "environment" that is your choice. If by environment you mean using things you have read or places you have been to inform and influences your creation then we all do that, that is what I have been talking about.

Quote from: soltakss;983812I have read it several times and understand everything.
However, there is a big difference between understanding what you are saying and agreeing with what you are saying.

That was in response to people posting that I disagreed with something that I stated I agreed with, that is because they posted without reading what I said.

Quote from: estar;983844Nice to see something using it.:D

You are Rob Conley? I have only seen you elsewhere under your real name and did not realize that was who I was talking to here. What I get for not paying attention to signatures.

Quote from: EOTB;983848convert any of these works to PDFs and upload them to RPGNow or Lulu.  

Why would I want to do that?

Quote from: EOTB;983848But verily, how could anyone stop to do such trivial things when they're blessed with powerball-odds-like circumstances of nearly a dozen childhood friends all staying in the same location for nearly 70 years, and interesting their families in a multi-generational campaign?

Nine including myself, two are passed away, three live nearby and three live between 2-6 hours away. That does not seem like powerball odds to me. I don't know how old you are but if you have children and none them play in your game ever as an adult, I am really sorry for you and the same if you have grandchildren. That is very sad.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983874The term "sandbox" originates with video games. It was adopted by developers of the 3E Wilderlands boxed set to describe the way that the published (not DIY) Wilderlands campaign could be used in play. (cite (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35958-How-good-are-you-about-freeform-gameplay/page28&p=943126#post943126))

So: No. You're wrong. That's not what sandbox means.

Wow, the Wilderlands, according to you, predate Blackmoor and Greyhawk! Thanks for the information, I didn't know that!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983874The term "sandbox" originates with video games. It was adopted by developers of the 3E Wilderlands boxed set to describe the way that the published (not DIY) Wilderlands campaign could be used in play. (cite (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35958-How-good-are-you-about-freeform-gameplay/page28&p=943126#post943126))

So: No. You're wrong. That's not what sandbox means.

But we're talking about the newly-minted term "pure sandbox"...which has a much more specific definition that almost nobody anywhere actually lives up to.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

A pure sandbox is one I don't have scoop cat turds out of before I play in it.

When I started playing we all made up our own worlds no matter what game we were playing. It still feels a little starange to me to use a prewritten setting that someone else made up.

I can run a setting I didn't create in sandbox fashion, and usually do. To me the distinguishing feature of a sandbox game is that the players are free to go where they want and do what. They want with the world. The world and its contents do not have "plot armour". If I amrunning Middle Earth and Bilbo gets killed before he finds the One Ring, so be it. The rest of the campaign will take a very different shape to Tolkien's story. If the players are at the Council of Elrond they can argue for the Ring to be sent. To Mina's Tirith instead of Mound Doom, and if they make a good enough case they might win.

If my players in any game ignore the juicy plot hooks I dangle in front of them, I just have to accept it.  I try to design enough of the world that I can keep them from venturing into completely blank space off the. Edge of the map, but sometimes it happens.  In my old dungeon delving days a locked iron door" was code in several of our campaigns for "I haven't finished this part of the dungeon, come back later."  I don't see it as being country to the spirit of sandbox to ask for a pause to make something up when needed.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983879Wow, the Wilderlands, according to you, predate Blackmoor and Greyhawk! Thanks for the information, I didn't know that!

That not what he said nor what I said in the post he cited. It quite clear that use of the word sandbox in the sense of a style of RPG campaigns did not exist prior to the marketing of the Wilderlands Box Set. In addition it use to describe a setting where the players chose his own way of playing for a computer game dates back from the late 90s.

For both tabletop roleplaying and computers people were playing sandbox prior to both use of the term was coined. The coining of a easy to remember phrase does not equal when people actually started playing the various kinds of sandboxes.

One time I scoured all the past issues of Dragon Magazine (I have the Dragon Magazine Archive on CD) for the use of the word sandbox. I did not find a single instance of it being used to describe a style of tabletop rpg campaign. It was used several times in reference to how roleplaying was like returning to the sandbox of one's childhood. And as alternate term for tabletop roleplaying in general.  In contrast what was being used were terms like open campaign or free-ranging campaign. The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide used open to describe a sandbox style campaign.

Quote from: estar;983892The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide used open to describe a sandbox style campaign.

Yeah, I thought the 1e DSG Open/Matrix/Linear typology was very useful, it's a pity it didn't enter into general use. In particular the Matrix type campaign describes many actual campaigns but is not a widely recognised concept.

Dammit now I am going to have dig up my copy of Dunegoneers Survival Guide that I haven't seen in decades to check this out.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983886Quote me saying that, troll.

Wow, you didn't understand the implications of what you wrote did you!:rolleyes:

Quote from: estar;983892That not what he said nor what I said in the post he cited.

It's not what you said, it is what he implied.

Quote from: estar;983892One time I scoured all the past issues of Dragon Magazine (I have the Dragon Magazine Archive on CD) for the use of the word sandbox. I did not find a single instance of it being used to describe a style of tabletop rpg campaign. It was used several times in reference to how roleplaying was like returning to the sandbox of one's childhood. And as alternate term for tabletop roleplaying in general.  In contrast what was being used were terms like open campaign or free-ranging campaign. The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide used open to describe a sandbox style campaign.

Thunder Rift, which was created as a mini campaign setting and very sandbox described it in one entry as wilderness, which was a term a few others used as well for that sort of free ranging style.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983904It's not what you said, it is what he implied.

Not seeing it especially with the video game reference. You need to reread what you quoted more carefully.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983874The term "sandbox" originates with video games. It was adopted by developers of the 3E Wilderlands boxed set to describe the way that the published (not DIY) Wilderlands campaign could be used in play. (cite (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35958-How-good-are-you-about-freeform-gameplay/page28&p=943126#post943126))

So: No. You're wrong. That's not what sandbox means.

As usual, very informational. My hat is off to you sir.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983872Nine including myself, two are passed away, three live nearby and three live between 2-6 hours away. That does not seem like powerball odds to me. I don't know how old you are but if you have children and none them play in your game ever as an adult, I am really sorry for you and the same if you have grandchildren. That is very sad.

Norman Rockwell wept.

QuoteOD&D game #3000 will be the 5th, 6th and 7th of September 2008. (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=383891#p383891)

I'll leave others to divide the claimed number of session into the time period (1971? - 2008) and then consider for themselves whether or not a hypothetical multi-generational group of disparate families committing to a single recreational activity every 4.5 days, for decades, through all of life's cycles, is even healthy, or characteristic of well-rounded, normal people.  

Remember - this is all pure pristine DIY.  This isn't supposedly a bunch of kids in middle school who can play all weekend and most weekdays.  Starting in the 70s when presumably these friends still had 9-5 jobs and young families (given being in their late 20s-early 30s in a more traditional period), every week nearly without fail they would gather, upwards of days at a time, to play D&D.  And DIY Daithi would create all of it from scratch, drawing on the 51,000 books he's read when he isn't working, sleeping, or rockin' out some DIY D&D.  The kids, and then the grandkids, wanted to invest their free time in this magnificent sandbox campaign.  

"Hey, little Daithi Junior - do you want to go camping this weekend with the rest of the guys in the neighborhood?  It's the trout opener and Billy just got new gear.  I might be able to sneak a six-pack out of the fridge Dad keeps in the garage, and the cheerleaders might sneak away too, know what I'm sayin'?"  

"Nah, my cleric's about to level in Grandpa Daithi Mac Liam's DIY Pure Sandbox (TM) campaign!  I spend part of every weekend there with the rest of my family - some of his friends come every week from 2 states away just to take part!  He's teaching me how to be a true old-schooler, unlike you lightweights that ran Steading of the Hill Giant Chief in the school library last week."

All of the rest of you should feel chastened and accept his words of wisdom while clapping with one hand (the other hand is drawing a DIY map).

Quote from: EOTB;983914I'll leave others to divide the claimed number of session into the time period (1971? - 2008) and then consider for themselves whether or not a hypothetical multi-generational group of disparate families committing to a single recreational activity every 4.5 days, for decades, through all of life's cycles, is even healthy, or characteristic of well-rounded, normal people.  

Remember - this is all pure pristine DIY.  This isn't supposedly a bunch of kids in middle school who can play all weekend and most weekdays.  Starting in the 70s when presumably these friends still had 9-5 jobs and young families (given being in their late 20s-early 30s in a more traditional period), every week nearly without fail they would gather, upwards of days at a time, to play D&D.  And DIY Daithi would create all of it from scratch, drawing on the 51,000 books he's read when he isn't working, sleeping, or rockin' out some DIY D&D.  The kids, and then the grandkids, wanted to invest their free time in this magnificent sandbox campaign...  

Listen and Believe, EOTB! :D

Quote from: EOTB;983914I'll leave others to divide the claimed number of session into the time period (1971? - 2008) and then consider for themselves whether or not a hypothetical multi-generational group of disparate families committing to a single recreational activity every 4.5 days, for decades, through all of life's cycles, is even healthy, or characteristic of well-rounded, normal people.  

3000 sessions from 1971 to 2008? Well there were 1982 weeks in that period. (six of those years have 53 weeks instead of 52). So that is 1.5 session per week for 38 years.

Quote from: EOTB;983914I'll leave others to divide the claimed number of session into the time period (1971? - 2008) and then consider for themselves whether or not a hypothetical multi-generational group of disparate families committing to a single recreational activity every 4.5 days, for decades, through all of life's cycles, is even healthy, or characteristic of well-rounded, normal people.  

Remember - this is all pure pristine DIY.  This isn't supposedly a bunch of kids in middle school who can play all weekend and most weekdays.  Starting in the 70s when presumably these friends still had 9-5 jobs and young families (given being in their late 20s-early 30s in a more traditional period), every week nearly without fail they would gather, upwards of days at a time, to play D&D.  And DIY Daithi would create all of it from scratch, drawing on the 51,000 books he's read when he isn't working, sleeping, or rockin' out some DIY D&D.  The kids, and then the grandkids, wanted to invest their free time in this magnificent sandbox campaign.  

"Hey, little Daithi Junior - do you want to go camping this weekend with the rest of the guys in the neighborhood?  It's the trout opener and Billy just got new gear.  I might be able to sneak a six-pack out of the fridge Dad keeps in the garage, and the cheerleaders might sneak away too, know what I'm sayin'?"  

"Nah, my cleric's about to level in Grandpa Daithi Mac Liam's DIY Pure Sandbox (TM) campaign!  I spend part of every weekend there with the rest of my family - some of his friends come every week from 2 states away just to take part!  He's teaching me how to be a true old-schooler, unlike you lightweights that ran Steading of the Hill Giant Chief in the school library last week."

All of the rest of you should feel chastened and accept his words of wisdom while clapping with one hand (the other hand is drawing a DIY map).

1. According to you we are crazy people for playing OD&D on a regular basis.
2. You assume that our kids play every game rather that now and then, no where did I ever talk about how much or how often the kids and grandkids play only that they do. Our kids lead as normal lives as any other kids.
3. You said for days at a time - special events a couple times a year and you do you best to make that sound like the crime of the century and you are accusing us of not being mentally healthy, sounds to me like you are the one that is unbalanced. A lot of people do things year round year after year, I have a neighbor that goes running every day before work rain/shine/snow 365 days of the year, that is one example of dozens I could give you.
4. According to you I have friends that come in from out of state every week, when what I said was they come into town a few times a year not every week (the ones 2 hours away more often that the ones 6 hours away - that is what giving a range of times means)  

Thank you so much for writing such an inaccurate post just for the sole purpose of trying to make me look bad. (I think the consensus is that I don't need any help with that :rolleyes:)I and my friends have never forced any family members to play. Our wives are friends and so are our kids, so getting together was an event for every one not just the old men.

I feel badly for you that your life is so empty that you have to slam me and my family in a futile attempt to make yourself feel better.

Quote from: estar;9839223000 sessions from 1971 to 2008? Well there were 1982 weeks in that period. (six of those years have 53 weeks instead of 52). So that is 1.5 session per week for 38 years.

Thank you,

Add to that in 1974 I was 37 and my youngest at that time was 11 years old - no diapers and no getting up in the middle of the night. A few weeks a year we would get in 2-3 games even before we retired and  I did retire at 65 in 2002, at which time we retired guys (the four of us that were local, well for part of that time 6 of us) started playing several times a week. The wives liked having us out of their hair. So the higher average from 2002-2008 raised the average for the preceding years.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983711you can call that original. Using Forgotten Realms Guide, if they told you where they got the inspiration then go back to those and do you own thing. If you want to use a tertiary source like Forgotten Realms and copy it, then don't pretend you are doing something original.
Because  are not game materials written for a game. Anything you do with them will be original. But Forgotten realms material was written for a game, the original sources were already ported into game terms, now you are just copying someone else that already did the fun part.

So I have a serious question about the above...

Does using the OD&D boxed set almost at all preclude your game being a pure sandbox? After all, Men & Magic translates the inspirational source material into character classes, races, and spells. Monsters & Treasure translates the inspirational material into monsters and magic items. And what if your inspiration is LotR which itself was inspired in part by mythology? How far do you have to go to original sources to qualify as DIY for purity? To be absurdist, I would posit that it's impossible to be pure DIY because any myth or fiction we read today was inspired by oral tradition that sadly was not recorded for us to play back today...

Frank

Quote from: Crimhthan;9839251. According to you we are crazy people for playing OD&D on a regular basis.

Well, that goes without saying. Look at what happened to Gronan.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983925I feel badly for you...

Correct grammar is "I feel bad"...unless you mean there is something wrong with your hands or fingers? Maybe from rolling all those funny dice every 4 1/2 days for hours at a time?

Quote from: DavetheLost;983889To me the distinguishing feature of a sandbox game is that the players are free to go where they want and do what.

I strongly suspect that behind the "do what they want" is conditional and that there are a number of implied assumptions about genre and the sort of things player characters in roleplaying games are meant to do. I mean if the players decided that what they really wanted to is run perfectly normal, legit hair salon or an accountancy firm there may come a point this isn't fun anymore for the GM. Most GMs I know don't want to run "The Sims Tabletop".

Likewise, though with a lesser degree of certainty, that the "go where they want" in most really means "go where they want as long as it is together". I expect in most cases that the GM would like the different player characters to interact with each other, ideally travel together or at least be based in the same city. So again the notion that the players are free to go where they want may be a little overstated.

I'm not saying these are likely to happen in practice very often given there is defacto self-selection among roleplayers and accepted gaming conventions and etiquette, such say I very much doubt most sandbox games are truly pure.

I'm just being pedantic because implied assumptions are a pet peeve of mine.

So how much of a pre-made RPG setting can one borrow before the sandbox ceases to be 'pure'? Is there some sort of one-drop rule that applies here?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;983970So how much of a pre-made RPG setting can one borrow before the sandbox ceases to be 'pure'? Is there some sort of one-drop rule that applies here?

Zero. Only entirely DIY games are pure sandbox. If you even use a rulebook, that's not pure sandbox. And if any players how up and dilute the purity, that's not a real sandbox either. The only pure sandbox games take place entirely within your mind with no outside interference.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983684No I am just making a distinction between good, better and best. If you like mediocre, then that likely explains why you are offended.

    No, I think it's more likely that people are frustrated by the way you keep begging the question--you assume that 100% DIY, "pure sandbox" gaming is better without giving any solid reasons why, aside from a few lines about how a 'truly excellent DM' is one who is able to improvise when the players go 'off the map'.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;983982No, I think it's more likely that people are frustrated by the way you keep begging the question--you assume that 100% DIY, "pure sandbox" gaming is better without giving any solid reasons why, aside from a few lines about how a 'truly excellent DM' is one who is able to improve when the players go 'off the map'.

It only makes sense that the best possible sandbox game would take place outside the sandbox.

Quote from: Dumarest;983974Zero. Only entirely DIY games are pure sandbox. If you even use a rulebook, that's not pure sandbox. And if any players how up and dilute the purity, that's not a real sandbox either. The only pure sandbox games take place entirely within your mind with no outside interference.

That's the eastern path. The western one allows other players but only if they fast for two days and play turned to the direction of Illinois, Lord Gygax sacred birthplace.

Quote from: Crimhthan;9839251. According to you we are crazy people for playing OD&D on a regular basis.
2. You assume that our kids play every game rather that now and then, no where did I ever talk about how much or how often the kids and grandkids play only that they do. Our kids lead as normal lives as any other kids.
3. You said for days at a time - special events a couple times a year and you do you best to make that sound like the crime of the century and you are accusing us of not being mentally healthy, sounds to me like you are the one that is unbalanced. A lot of people do things year round year after year, I have a neighbor that goes running every day before work rain/shine/snow 365 days of the year, that is one example of dozens I could give you.
4. According to you I have friends that come in from out of state every week, when what I said was they come into town a few times a year not every week (the ones 2 hours away more often that the ones 6 hours away - that is what giving a range of times means)  

Thank you so much for writing such an inaccurate post just for the sole purpose of trying to make me look bad. (I think the consensus is that I don't need any help with that :rolleyes:)I and my friends have never forced any family members to play. Our wives are friends and so are our kids, so getting together was an event for every one not just the old men.

I feel badly for you that your life is so empty that you have to slam me and my family in a futile attempt to make yourself feel better.

I said "upwards" of a few days at a time - don't slander me!!

http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=511417#p511417

QuoteThis poll seems a bit odd to me since the group size tops out at 8+. I very seldom game with a group of less than 10-12 players and have played with about 20 or so many, many times. I had to laugh when I saw the "Chaos Reigns" at "8+". If you are running into Chaos with only 8 players, I can only offer you my deepest sympathy. My most recent big game was over the holidays when I ran a special game with 60+ players ranging in age from 6 to 75 on 12/29/2007. We split them into two groups of 30+ with a ref and asst ref for each group, with one group made up of Lawful and Neutral PCs and one group made up of Chaotic and Neutral PCs. We recreated (or at least tried to recreate) the Arnesonian game where the players played both the good guys and the bad guys. We had a great time with minimal chaos and confusion.

...

Myself and my original players and those few of our children, grandchildren and a few great-grandchildren that play. We planned it and did it as an experiment to recreate that original mode of play that goes back to the very beginning of Blackmoor.
...

The original 9 of us average 5 kids each among us, that is 45 children plus spouses. Those 45 children average 3 kids each and that is 135 grand-children, about 2/3 of the grandchildren are married. Collectively the 9 of us have about 20 great-grand children that are old enough to play. Five of us and our extended families still live in the same area and 4 of us and extended families live elsewhere but come back to the area a few times a year. Everyone in our familes has played at least once and at least 70% play at least semi-regularly. Sixty plus players for a one shot is no big deal, but we very seldom play in groups that large (and that was with 4 refs). We probably play with 20 or so in one game 4 or 5 times per year. The campaigns us old folks run are only a few of the campaigns being run in the families.

70% of multiple unrelated families, of all ages and sexes, took up a fairly esoteric hobby at least "semi-regularly".  Huh.  Maybe you should bottle that and sell it to WOTC.  Because they'd be dying for it.  You practically have an obligation to the hobby to publish what must be your vast store of gaming materials you've DIY'd over the years, because I know a bunch of gamers that would be overjoyed to get a 70% semi-regular participation rate of all their relatives in periodically occurring games of D&D.  

Maybe the VTT folks are paying you to keep quiet, so you don't blow up their business plans with all this face-to-face gaming.

Sorry dude.  It's weird.  To get multiple families who aren't even related to each other, to give up their family holiday time and converge together on the Saturday between Christmas and NYE in 2007 to put together a 60 person extravaganza game session as an "experiment to recreate that original mode of play that goes back to the very beginning of Blackmoor", is an extraordinary claim of the type you throw out casually all the time.  Yeah, I know people who jog every day too.  You know why they jog every day?

Because they don't have to coordinate that activity between 3 other people, let alone 10.  Only a non-social person would have the hole in their social understanding to think that ramping up the complexity gives their statement increased weight and credibility.

You on the other hand, claim logistical feats of implausibility as if they are absolutely normal, and then springboard them into bonafides used to trash other people who play D&D for a lack of purity or ability.  "What?  You have trouble running a table for 8 people?  I laugh at that, 8 gamers is nothing!  I run events where 60 people are playing D&D in the same room and there's zero chaos."  "What, you use published material?  You don't do the one true game like I can.  Just read 2 books a day and you'll never run out of inspiration."

Quote from: Crimhthan;983926Thank you,

Add to that in 1974 I was 37 and my youngest at that time was 11 years old - no diapers and no getting up in the middle of the night. A few weeks a year we would get in 2-3 games even before we retired and  I did retire at 65 in 2002, at which time we retired guys (the four of us that were local, well for part of that time 6 of us) started playing several times a week. The wives liked having us out of their hair. So the higher average from 2002-2008 raised the average for the preceding years.

So we are talking about from 1974 since you were 37?

The average spiked up because of frequent gaming after you retired, sort of like how middle-school kids were able to play D&D back in the day?  That's weird.  Are you lying now, or were you lying then (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=375248#p375248)?

Playing 1000 sessions from 1974 through 1981 would be a session approx. every 3 days
playing another 1000 sessions between 1982 through 1995 would be a session approx every 5 days
Then playing another 1000 sessions between 1996 and 2008 would be again, a very symmetrical approx 5 days between sessions.

3 and 5 seems to be a recurring number in your history.

It doesn't seem like your playing increased as you "aged".  It seems like it went down.

[EDIT - OK, to be fair, you claim to have ran 292 sessions of OD&D for "seldom less than 10-12" people in 644 days between Dec 2006 and Sept of 2008 (1 game of between 10-12 people (normally) every 2.2 days).]

Of course, while you were getting up in the middle of the night to take care of the young'uns, you were still playing cards, board games, and war games every 4 days, on average, between 1956 and 1971.  And then there's the chainmail fantasy campaign - no doubt somewhere claimed to be right in that range.  

All while averaging 2 books read a day, every day of your life, until you claimed 51,000 books read by the mid-aughts.

Why does any of this matter?  It doesn't.  But since you like to preface whatever your rancid opinions are by implying a "more-gamer-than-thou" shtick, examining your own credibility for slamming everyone who doesn't live up to the fantastical standard you want to lord about becomes relevant.  

You're full of shit, Crimhthan, and you like to go on message boards and get jacked on some psuedo-superiority trip because no one games the way you bullshit-claim you do.  And then you want to run around the internet and smear any groups or individuals who call you on your bullshit and expel your argumentative crap.  And this doesn't even touch on the sock puppets.  Giving fair warning wherever you pop up that you're full of shit is a small public service.  Because you know as well as I do that the default gamer's reaction to "I'm 80 years old and go back to playing OD&D in 1974" is to grant an extra measure of respect and deference.  Which in your case I'm quite positive is "stolen valor".

Here's a sandbox that I like.

Spoiler

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/78/c4/fe/78c4fe9ebe7267fd299c9c650dc1b5a7.jpg)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983690What if I make a DIY railroad adventure with a script?

Apparently it's a Crimthanesque sandbox.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983728Why did anybody even RESPOND to the original post?

Hey we all know that fire stops OD&D trolls from regenerating. But unlike the trolls inspired by Three Hearts and Three Lions we don't know what stops a Crimthan Internet troll from regenerating. So some people are using trial and error in the probably vain hope that they will find something, anything that works....

Quote from: Dumarest;983855Funny thing is, at first I said sure, maybe he really is 80 and has been playing D&D since 1974, but the more he posts the less likely it seems. The credibility has stretched to point of snapping.

Shhhh...don't allow little things like reason, logic, or the actuarial tables to critique the awesomeness of the hallowed advice of the Crimthan.

Quote from: estar;9839223000 sessions from 1971 to 2008? Well there were 1982 weeks in that period. (six of those years have 53 weeks instead of 52). So that is 1.5 session per week for 38 years.

1971 was 3 years before Brown Box D&D, the first published RPG, was released on the public. And Crimthan says he uses Arduin which wasn't published for another 3 years (1977)....



Thanks EOTB for pulling up some of Crimthan's campaign 'stats.'  I had forgotten that he claims to be the octogenarian who played Arduin Grimoire for years before Arneson and Gygax started RPGs in Lake Geneva.

Personally I can't imagine wanting to play D&D every 4 1/2 days for 43 years in the same everlasting campaign  with a bunch of annoying relatives and their children when there are so many other things to do in this world...is that RPG heresy?

Quote from: Dumarest;984014Personally I can't imagine wanting to play D&D every 4 1/2 days for 43 years in the same everlasting campaign  with a bunch of annoying relatives and their children when there are so many other things to do in this world...is that RPG heresy?

Seriously, doesn't anyone else want to be the DM for a change? Anyone?...Anyone at all?...Anyone?...

I believe it. It's possible. I mean, I started playing AD&D (1st ed.) in 1968 using the Forgotten Realms boxed set and a copy of Warlock and have played for a minimum of 8 hours a day with the same group, which includes Frank Sinatra, Jack Kerouac, Lindsay Lohan, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Gary Gygax, the entire time. We just played our 13,000th session yesterday and it was totally pure DIY sandbox and it was awesome. Frank's half-hobbit assassin just killed Sauron with a sweet backstab and hit 79th level.

Quote from: Dumarest;983974Zero. Only entirely DIY games are pure sandbox. If you even use a rulebook, that's not pure sandbox. And if any players how up and dilute the purity, that's not a real sandbox either. The only pure sandbox games take place entirely within your mind with no outside interference.

Designed that. Done that... :cool:

Quote from: Dumarest;984014Personally I can't imagine wanting to play D&D every 4 1/2 days for 43 years in the same everlasting campaign  with a bunch of annoying relatives and their children when there are so many other things to do in this world...is that RPG heresy?

Actually... One of the local gaming groups that I DMed Star Frontiers for is indeed generational. Im not sure but I think they are up to the great grandkids playing? (Or will in a year or five.) They play once a week barring unforeseens.

Quote from: Dumarest;984017I believe it. It's possible. I mean, I started playing AD&D (1st ed.) in 1968 using the Forgotten Realms boxed set and a copy of Warlock and have played for a minimum of 8 hours a day with the same group, which includes Frank Sinatra, Jack Kerouac, Lindsay Lohan, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Gary Gygax, the entire time. We just played our 13,000th session yesterday and it was totally pure DIY sandbox and it was awesome. Frank's half-hobbit assassin just killed Sauron with a sweet backstab and hit 79th level.

I believe it all.

Crimhthan though is full of shit.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

I belive it was Nexus who identified Crimhthan as a phoney and troll almost immediately btw.

Quote from: Soylent Green;983968I strongly suspect that behind the "do what they want" is conditional and that there are a number of implied assumptions about genre and the sort of things player characters in roleplaying games are meant to do. I mean if the players decided that what they really wanted to is run perfectly normal, legit hair salon or an accountancy firm there may come a point this isn't fun anymore for the GM. Most GMs I know don't want to run "The Sims Tabletop".

Likewise, though with a lesser degree of certainty, that the "go where they want" in most really means "go where they want as long as it is together". I expect in most cases that the GM would like the different player characters to interact with each other, ideally travel together or at least be based in the same city. So again the notion that the players are free to go where they want may be a little overstated.

I'm not saying these are likely to happen in practice very often given there is defacto self-selection among roleplayers and accepted gaming conventions and etiquette, such say I very much doubt most sandbox games are truly pure.

I'm just being pedantic because implied assumptions are a pet peeve of mine.

"The party" is an assumption that has never been as strong in my campaigns as in gaming in general. One year, I think it was 1995, I had to run twice a week for most of the summer and fall because two of the PCs and two of their NPC friends had decided to accept a merchant's offer of a job guarding his caravan while the other three PC's went into the western mountains because one of them wanted to reacquaint himself with an old girlfriend and convinced the other two that panning for gold up there would be more profitable than hiring on with the merchant.

----------------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

Quote from: Voros;984049I belive it was Nexus who identified Crimhthan as a phoney and troll almost immediately btw.

Well, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt for a while, then I began to doubt the benefit.

Quote from: Voros;984049I belive it was Nexus who identified Crimhthan as a phoney and troll almost immediately btw.

By observing the natural rule of "He who smelt it dealt it", it can be deduced that Crimhthan must be a sockpuppet of Nexus. That's just science.

Quote from: Bren;984011Here's a sandbox that I like.

Spoiler

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/78/c4/fe/78c4fe9ebe7267fd299c9c650dc1b5a7.jpg)

:

Our cat ended those sandboxes. :(

My girlfriend was so excited when she got her Zen sand garden all set up. Moments later, our cat leaped up and took a steaming dump right into the Zen.

I was hysterical.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;984044[David Attenborough Voice]
What we see here is the troll in its native environment. When called on his bullshit, he flails wildly, flinging his shit everywhere in the hope no one notices that he has shit himself.
[/David Attenborough Voice]

You are of course speaking of yourself to cover up that you are too stupid to understand what you previously wrote. I have great pity for you, it must really be tough living it that skull with all the voices.

Quote from: Voros;984037I believe it all.

Crimhthan though is full of shit.

That would be your prime attribute and would not leave any to go around for anyone else. Are you as stupid as you appear to be or is it even worse than that?

Quote from: Voros;984049I belive it was Nexus who identified Crimhthan as a phoney and troll almost immediately btw.

But I am Nexus! Didn't you know that? I am also Voros, too! And I am also Justin Alexander. When they all attack me, none of you would suspect that they are me. Where if they agreed with me, then it would be obvious they were me, because if two or three or four or more people agree, then they all have to be the same person. That is the prevailing view right, if two or three or four or more people agree, then they have to be the same person. But that is why it is so easy to fool everyone if my sockpuppets Nexus and Voros and Justin Alexander and the other sockpuppet accounts attack me.;)

Quote from: Dumarest;983952Well, that goes without saying. Look at what happened to Gronan.

I have to admit that you do have a point there, Gronan is a bit looney tunes.

Quote from: Dumarest;983952Correct grammar is "I feel bad"...unless you mean there is something wrong with your hands or fingers? Maybe from rolling all those funny dice every 4 1/2 days for hours at a time?

A grammar Nazi, every forum has one or two. Well grammar Nazi, I never claimed to a grammar expert. But I feel so sorry for your friends, if you have any (or have you ever had any?), they must get really tired of having you correct them all the time.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;983970So how much of a pre-made RPG setting can one borrow before the sandbox ceases to be 'pure'? Is there some sort of one-drop rule that applies here?

Questions with racist references do not deserve answers.

Quote from: Dumarest;983974Zero. Only entirely DIY games are pure sandbox. If you even use a rulebook, that's not pure sandbox. And if any players how up and dilute the purity, that's not a real sandbox either. The only pure sandbox games take place entirely within your mind with no outside interference.

Sorry that you haven't been paying attention or didn't read and understand what I said, but I really do not have time to dumb things down to your level of understanding, most especially since it is obvious that you failure to understand is deliberate.

Quote from: Dumarest;983974Zero. Only entirely DIY games are pure sandbox. If you even use a rulebook, that's not pure sandbox. And if any players how up and dilute the purity, that's not a real sandbox either. The only pure sandbox games take place entirely within your mind with no outside interference.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;983982No, I think it's more likely that people are frustrated by the way you keep begging the question--you assume that 100% DIY, "pure sandbox" gaming is better without giving any solid reasons why, aside from a few lines about how a 'truly excellent DM' is one who is able to improvise when the players go 'off the map'.

Sorry that you haven't been paying attention or didn't read and understand what I said, but I really do not have time to dumb things down to your level of understanding, most especially since it is obvious that you failure to understand is deliberate.

Quote from: Baulderstone;983983It only makes sense that the best possible sandbox game would take place outside the sandbox.

What makes you think that off the map is outside the sandbox? That is illogical.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984171I have to admit that you do have a point there, Gronan is a bit looney tunes.

 A grammar Nazi, every forum has one or two. Well grammar Nazi, I never claimed to a grammar expert. But I feel so sorry for your friends, if you have any (or have you ever had any?), they must get really tired of having you correct them all the time.

That's the usual response from someone too stupid to learn grammar: defensiveness.

I'm just kicking you because of your numerous fabrications and apparent need for acknowledgement.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984172Questions with racist references do not deserve answers.

Translation: "I bave no answer therefore I'll pretend the question is unworthy of a response."

Quote from: Crimhthan;984174Sorry that you haven't been paying attention or didn't read and understand what I said, but I really do not have time to dumb things down to your level of understanding, most especially since it is obvious that you failure to understand is deliberate.

Translation: "I'm unable to explain my idiotic assertions so I'll pretend the problem lies anyone who questions them."

Quote from: EOTB;983985I said "upwards" of a few days at a time - don't slander me!!

Thank you EOTB, you are my number one sockpuppet. Arguing with myself is so much fun, everyone should try it. BTW the OD&D games started with the publication of OD&D in 1974 and the total of games started in before that with our heavily house-ruled chainmail. My favorite sockie EOTB get confused easily, it is part of that persona.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984181Thank you EOTB, you are my number one sockpuppet. Arguing with myself is so much fun, everyone should try it. BTW the OD&D games started with the publication of OD&D in 1974 and the total of games started in before that with our heavily house-ruled chainmail. My favorite sockie EOTB get confused easily, it is part of that persona.

Translation: "Damn it, no one is taking me seriously even though I've claimed to play D&D every 4 1/2 days since 1971. How do I get out of this corner I've backed myself into with my obvious lies?"

Quote from: Bren;984011Hey we all know that fire stops OD&D trolls from regenerating. But unlike the trolls inspired by Three Hearts and Three Lions we don't know what stops a Crimthan Internet troll from regenerating. So some people are using trial and error in the probably vain hope that they will find something, anything that works....

....other than starvation that is.

Well the first step would be to ban me and also ban the 30 or so of you that are also me. Yep, Bren is me too! The rule is this, anyone who posts in a thread after me is always me. At least that is true if you believe anything that a tosterite says.

Quote from: Dumarest;984179Translation: "I bave no answer therefore I'll pretend the question is unworthy of a response."

Yep, Dumarest is me too. Because if he was different from me he could come up with something better than this.

Quote from: Dumarest;984177That's the usual response from someone too stupid to learn grammar: defensiveness.

I'm just kicking you because of your numerous fabrications and apparent need for acknowledgement.

No you are kicking me, because it makes you feel good and you get pleasure from it. Have you stop torturing kittens yet?

Quote from: Dumarest;984182It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You are such a tiny fish it is not all that easy.

Quote from: Bren;984011

Quote from: Gronan of SimmeryaWhy did anybody even RESPOND to the original post?

Hey we all know that fire stops OD&D trolls from regenerating. But unlike the trolls inspired by Three Hearts and Three Lions we don't know what stops a Crimthan Internet troll from regenerating. So some people are using trial and error in the probably vain hope that they will find something, anything that works....

....other than starvation that is.

And yet, on some level, I think we all know that starvation is the right solution. No one is giving him what-for. No one is eviscerating him. Everyone is giving him Ex-act-ly what he wants.

He knows we all know he's a troll. He knows no one believes that he has any advanced knowledge or particularly informative perspective regarding the game. He knows we all have sub-zero respect for him. Saying so doesn't change anything.

No one is accomplishing anything except feeding the troll in a vain attempt to have more control over the situation than they have. And showing that they fail is the power over others that he so desperately seeks. Guy who loves eating our hate proves he can get it whenever he wants.  He's winning because we can't keep ourselves from picking at scabs.

If this thread doesn't become a real conversation about what is sandbox play I will have to close it.

Considering that the OP was trolling, yeah...

I'm not sure the thread is capable or even deserving of being saved but I'll stipulate that that the OP is reasonably intelligible if bizarre and idiosyncratic. The claim is that aside from any other characteristics, a "true" sandbox mustn't use premade material written by someone other than the GM. Even making common sense allowances for rules (e.g. AD&D) and building blocks of setting (monsters, spells, treasure types), I disagree that this is a useful restriction when it comes to talking about "sandbox". It does have its place in discussing the spirit of a certain kind of play. (In short I can see someone saying that the idea of D&D was to make your own setting and that doing so has certain advantages. Another former poster once wrote that he felt buying/reading settings was only useful to see "worked examples". I don't think that's a crazy opinion.)

As far as positively defining sandbox, obviously (?) a universal prescriptive definition is impossible without reference to some authority, where I think Rob has the best claim. Others can lay claim to related terms such as "world in motion" or "world-based gaming", etc. But in another thread I suggested it can be illuminating to ask whether the campaign/setting is designed/written/run in a manner that would allow multiple PC parties to play in it simultaneously. It's pretty obvious that a "campaign" with a fixed storyline doesn't meet this criterion since only one party can "play through".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;984232If this thread doesn't become a real conversation about what is sandbox play I will have to close it.

Nah just move it to Pundit's forum and re-title it.

What is Pure Sandbox Play or The One where the World and Crimhtan bitch at each other... a lot! ;)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;984232If this thread doesn't become a real conversation about what is sandbox play I will have to close it.

I was and am quite open to discussing sandbox play, and unlike a claim above I do not and have not claimed to have "Advanced Knowledge". Why don't you delete the pages of insults by people with no purpose other than picking a fight (and of course my responses to those insults). Then I can go back to posting about sandboxes and Rob can post about sandboxes and we will see if anyone has anything to say about sandboxes. There is a claim here that there is other types of sandboxes, but I haven't seen anything real discussion about what those might be yet aside from a few comments by Rob.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984181Thank you EOTB, you are my number one sockpuppet. Arguing with myself is so much fun, everyone should try it. BTW the OD&D games started with the publication of OD&D in 1974 and the total of games started in before that with our heavily house-ruled chainmail. My favorite sockie EOTB get confused easily, it is part of that persona.

:rolleyes:

The unfortunate thing is that this thread is really all RPGs are to Crimhthan/Perilous Dreamer/et al anymore: a device to make up personas on the internet and harass people who want to talk about RPGs.  But he is a real dude.  A DF poster poster who also lives in Ohio confirmed meeting him for a game with him and some little kid.  

What I wish is that he could incarnate one last time into a new persona (after he got some help), because before he started playing these games he did contribute to boards in a positive way.  Before he had his "LLaurenela (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=188001#p188001)" personality (30-ish woman (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=213583#p213583) who also was an amazing confluence of statistical anomolies - single due to widowing, had 13 year-old twin sons who also loved D&D, played in a 11-person D&D group of 7 women and 4 men (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=241344#p241344), felt OD&D was the "one true game" (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=217757#p217757), had a thing for rules lawyers (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=217317#p217317), wanted to bring up conservative politics on D&D message boards (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=253449#p253449), and also concern for children seeing content she felt was lewd (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=253551#p253551)) come down with advanced incurable cancer (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19666&hilit=Llaurenela) and have "her" childhood friend supposedly executing her estate send out a bizarre email (https://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?cache=1&f=1&t=5135&c=1) resolving "her online D&D relationships" after she died on December 27, 2006 (notice any similarities with any other dates on this thread?) he did make positive contributions to the boards.


Anyone can pull up posts by all of these characters around the internet and look at them.  They're obviously made by the same person.  Putting a fake mustache and a wig on isn't really all that effective.

QuoteJust to chime in with my 2cp, I thought that a Grognard was someone who started with wargames and then moved on to OD&D when it came out. So that they would be the group that had about 28-31 years in playing OD&D and a background in wargames. Alternatively, anyone who started with OD&D as the first version and the preferred version that they play, again about 28-31 years playing OD&D. Clarification please.

I am not sure that there is any practical way to verify the percentages who play each version, from reading posts on here, I have the impressions that there are a lot of people who play several versions. (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=216615#p216615)

QuoteI, Tgamemaster1975, am a 50 year old time OD&D player from the 70's. I do not now nor have I ever posted as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. You sir, are a liar and I do not appreciate it. You and a few others have made false accusations about me on here before and I was not permitted to defend myself from your lies at that time, so I will probably be censored again. But I take exception to your slander and state fully and truthfully that I am myself and no one else. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=309250#p309250)

QuoteBy The Book is the moronic concept that if you don't do everything exactly as written then you are a heretic and should be burned at the stake and it also is the patron saint of those who are anti-homebrew which is funny because the whole development of OD&D is the story of homebrew games. Go over to the 1e forum and see the hysterics that some of the BTB crowd go into from time to time. I know you weren't using BTB that way, but that is the way that the BTB crowd defines the term by what they do and say in the forums.

I seriously doubt that EGG ever played a BTB game in his life even the ones he ran at cons. Everything I have ever read about the man indicates that house ruling on the spot is his modus operandi and, therefore, house ruling is part and parcel of the game if you are going to follow the spirit of the game, which I deem to be more important that the letter. Arneson's house rules were transmitted to EGG and he stirred them into the kettle with his own stuff and a lot of high intensity playtesting later created OD&D.
 (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=334334#p334334)

Quote from: calithenaOnly the first three Arduin Grimoires have anything to do with OD&D. The others, while full of neat ideas, come from several years later and feature Hargrave's homebrew system.

That said, they aren't part of the canon. Though I do think an OD&D forum would benefit from including them in the mix, along with Little Soldier and Fantasy Art Enterprises stuff, etc.

Granted that strictly speaking they are not part of the canon, however, they are in the same spirit that the first three were created in and unless you actually want to play Arduin Bloody Arduin then they are really just source material as I indicated and all nine are valuable in that regard.

QuoteOne there was nothing racist/hate in it and two I pointed out that the quoted material was nonsense and that I did not agree with it. I was just pointing out that those who believe in Nostradamus should be very worried about Obama as they believe that he is the Man in the Blue Turban who will destroy the US. Nostradamus and his so-called prophesies are something those on the left give great credence to, those on the right think it is bunk. I think it is quite funny that many of the people who support Obama are the same people who believe nonsense like Nostradamus. For you, Rhuvein, to try to call this racist and hate commentary and trying to smear me with that is the kind of crap that I would expect of The Egg. There is nothing racist or hate filled about it, I leave all of that to The Egg. (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=637900#p637900)

QuoteI prefer parties of 10-15 players. I have run several games with 29-30 players in the early years in college. All in OD&D of course. I thrive on the challenge of keeping everyone involved and helping everyone have a fun time. Not cool for someone to feel left out, and I strive to never let that happen. No one gets to hide in the corner in my game. I don't think I could do 30 players now, my mind is not as agile nor my short-term memory as good as it once was. Those were the days, 30 players, sit down and invent everything on the fly for the next 12 hours and everyone comes back to play again the next day. I remember watching Mac Davis invent songs on the spot and more recently watching Who's Line is it Anyway(is that the correct title) and enjoying the improv including song lyrics on the spot. I could do that in D&D. No dead space for 12 hours, no looking up rules, no looking at the tables, had it all in my head and just go with the flow, ask and answer questions, give detailed descriptions of what they see, they make decisions and I go from there, roll the dice for the encounters  :D ah memory sweet memory. (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=237594#p237594)

QuoteCongrats! On reaching 1000 sessions of your game. Quite an accomplishment. My group is at 2117 currently. (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=377133#p377133)

QuoteBut I never said any such thing. That is twisting and misunderstanding what I have said....

A pure sandbox is everything from "A village or two, and what lies beyond is revealed in play" all the way up to an extensively detailed " lot of world building prior to the campaign - forces in motion - so there is a lot of background and stuff happening, but the pieces can be played with like figures in a sandbox" - i.e. a living breathing world. Story driven (Railroad) is the antithesis of the sandbox at either extreme of what a sandbox is. Sandbox and Story-Driven (Railroad) can not co-exist.

Now if you want to play a story driven railroaded game, then please be my guest. I am not saying you can not, no where have I said you can not. Play anyway that you can have fun. Just do not pretend that all fun is old school, some fun is not old school. Why is that controversial? Can you people really not admit that not all fun is old school? (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1671269#p1671269)

They post (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=206489#p206489) in support of (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=205985#p205985)  each other (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=199961#p199961), when Crimhthan can get a few going at the same time (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=212928#p212928)..

It isn't really hard to figure out. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=384448#p384448)

Quote from: Crimhthan;984286There is a claim here that there is other types of sandboxes, but I haven't seen anything real discussion about what those might be yet aside from a few comments by Rob.

There is a pretty good thread on that here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37462-How-to-Sandbox), at least until someonecame in and ruined it.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651A pure sandbox is first and foremost about the DIY ethic. The original Blackmoor and the original Greyhawk were the template for what a pure sandbox game is. Arneson and Gygax created their own worlds and designed everything. A little later in the process Gygax invited Kuntz in as a co-ref and their each designed their parts of the pure sandbox. These are the original examples. So when you go out and buy a setting/world/module that someone else did you do not have a pure sandbox. You then have a hybrid game that is only possibly partially a sandbox here and there part of the time.

This is all established fact. It is established by the quotes about the founders who were (slight paraphrase) "amazed that anyone would want us to do their imagining for them." If you are really an old school ref, creating and designing your world is a huge part of the fun. Again this is all established fact.

Yeah, in your head, maybe;).

Quote from: EOTB;984287:rolleyes:

The unfortunate thing is that this thread is really all RPGs are to Crimhthan/Perilous Dreamer/et al anymore: a device to make up personas on the internet and harass people who want to talk about RPGs.  But he is a real dude.  A DF poster poster who also lives in Ohio confirmed meeting him for a game with him and some little kid.  

What I wish is that he could incarnate one last time into a new persona (after he got some help), because before he started playing these games he did contribute to boards in a positive way.  Before he had his "LLaurenela (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=188001#p188001)" personality (30-ish woman (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=213583#p213583) who also was an amazing confluence of statistical anomolies - single due to widowing, had 13 year-old twin sons who also loved D&D, played in a 11-person D&D group of 7 women and 4 men (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=241344#p241344), felt OD&D was the "one true game" (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=217757#p217757), had a thing for rules lawyers (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=217317#p217317), wanted to bring up conservative politics on D&D message boards (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=253449#p253449), and also concern for children seeing content she felt was lewd (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=253551#p253551)) come down with advanced incurable cancer (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19666&hilit=Llaurenela) and have "her" childhood friend supposedly executing her estate send out a bizarre email (https://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?cache=1&f=1&t=5135&c=1) resolving "her online D&D relationships" after she died on December 27, 2006 (notice any similarities with any other dates on this thread?) he did make positive contributions to the boards.


Anyone can pull up posts by all of these characters around the internet and look at them.  They're obviously made by the same person.  Putting a fake mustache and a wig on isn't really all that effective.

















They post (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=206489#p206489) in support of (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=205985#p205985)  each other (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=199961#p199961), when Crimhthan can get a few going at the same time (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=212928#p212928)..

It isn't really hard to figure out. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=384448#p384448)

But on 4/13/05, he said he was 50. So he should only be 62 now. Clearly they are different people even if the writing style and claims of censorship and persecution are all the same! :p

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651A pure sandbox is first and foremost about the DIY ethic. The original Blackmoor and the original Greyhawk were the template for what a pure sandbox game is. Arneson and Gygax created their own worlds and designed everything. A little later in the process Gygax invited Kuntz in as a co-ref and their each designed their parts of the pure sandbox. These are the original examples. So when you go out and buy a setting/world/module that someone else did you do not have a pure sandbox. You then have a hybrid game that is only possibly partially a sandbox here and there part of the time.

This is all established fact. It is established by the quotes about the founders who were (slight paraphrase) "amazed that anyone would want us to do their imagining for them." If you are really an old school ref, creating and designing your world is a huge part of the fun. Again this is all established fact.


But I have never said this, a pure sandbox does not start off for the players as a blank piece of paper. A pure sandbox is a living world created by an old school referee, so the players start in the middle of an area usually a town that they know certain things about and the further away it is the less they know. Now they may of heard of the Great Falls or the Green Mountains or the Endless Sea but they would know much beyond the name the general direction and old legends or tales (often they will know less than this). At this point they have spent time getting together the resources to go adventuring, they have been listening to rumors, news and stories the older men tell and they choose what they want to pursue. The blank sheet of paper comes in when they go off the prepared map. Then you go to create on the fly game, the real proof of the pudding as to whether you are more than average and the real test of your level of excellence as a ref. If you can create on the fly and keep your players on the edge of their seats then you are at worst well above average and may well  be excellent. On the fly is the ultimate refereeing experience, that is transcendent joy!

To create the living world you draw on all your knowledge (everything you have read, heard, seen or experienced) and your imagination (creation of new material that goes beyond your knowledge into a whole new magical realm). Anything else is not a pure sandbox and that is OK, not everyone is capable of doing this, but many are. Many though claim and preach that no one is capable of doing this and that is simply not true, it is the most evil lie ever told in the realm of OD&D. If someone tells you that you and your friends are not capable of creating a living world, then they should be dead to you, because they are a negative influence.


Edit: If you are reading this for the first time, please read it again before continuing. Since most of what I am getting is not based on what I wrote.

I find this to be very helpful, and I will take these words to heart in a campaign I will be running soon. A campaign done in the old-school sandbox style.

Not sure if I will use Vampire: The Masquerade (First Edition) or Big Eyes Small Mouth (First Edition) + Sailor Moon Role-Playing Game and Resource Book (compatible with BESM First Edition), though.

Both will use an original sandbox setting I am creating, based on the area where I reside: Roanoke, Virginia.

Not just the City of Roanoke, but the entire Roanoke Valley metropolitan area, which includes the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton, Roanoke County, Franklin County, and Botetourt County.

For me, how far along the sandbox - railroad spectrum your current campaign is, has nothing to do with where your material comes from.

Quote from: Arminius;984242The claim is that aside from any other characteristics, a "true" sandbox mustn't use premade material written by someone other than the GM. Even making common sense allowances for rules (e.g. AD&D) and building blocks of setting (monsters, spells, treasure types), I disagree that this is a useful restriction when it comes to talking about "sandbox". It does have its place in discussing the spirit of a certain kind of play. (In short I can see someone saying that the idea of D&D was to make your own setting and that doing so has certain advantages. Another former poster once wrote that he felt buying/reading settings was only useful to see "worked examples". I don't think that's a crazy opinion.)

The DIY true sandbox is a weird claim. When D&D was first released every setting was a DIY setting. Which means that DIY obviously isn't very difficult since a bunch of high school kids (me and my friends and thousands of others all around the country) figured out how to do it on our own after just reading the rules. Which makes one odd guy on the Internet's insistence that DIY is so radical and important kind of laughable. I'll grant that it's an interesting design ethic and one that I favor. But its not like there aren't other ways to play Elf, Jedi, and Musketeer games that can also be fun.

QuoteBut in another thread I suggested it can be illuminating to ask whether the campaign/setting is designed/written/run in a manner that would allow multiple PC parties to play in it simultaneously. It's pretty obvious that a "campaign" with a fixed storyline doesn't meet this criterion since only one party can "play through".

Well the GM could run the same storyline for multiple separate groups. After all that's exactly what anyone does who runs the same scenario multiple times. And a number of people have mentioned they do that. But I'd agree that it would be kind of strange to create some mega-plot and then to try to separately run multiple groups through it. Of course then there are (were?) those organized play Living World groups so I guess even that is possible.

But, Living World stuff aside, I think there probably is a pretty high correlation between "world designed and run for separate groups and ad hoc gatherings" and "campaign is a sandbox."

Quote from: Bren;984352The DIY true sandbox is a weird claim. When D&D was first released every setting was a DIY setting. Which means that DIY obviously isn't very difficult since a bunch of high school kids (me and my friends and thousands of others all around the country) figured out how to do it on our own after just reading the rules. Which makes one odd guy on the Internet's insistence that DIY is so radical and important kind of laughable. I'll grant that it's an interesting design ethic and one that I favor. But its not like there aren't other ways to play Elf, Jedi, and Musketeer games that can also be fun.

The DIY true sandbox is not a weird claim. It is the true that

QuoteWhen D&D was first released every setting was a DIY setting. Which means that DIY obviously isn't very difficult since a bunch of high school kids (me and my friends and thousands of others all around the country) figured out how to do it on our own after just reading the rules.

What makes it odd is that the vast majority and ALL game companies run around claiming that it is impossible and doing everything they can to convince people to not do what was done bitd and buy this and buy that, because you cannot create your own world. Rob is in the tiny, tiny minority that does anything other than push imitation as the only way to go. I went and looked up his writeup on world building and sandboxes and it is pretty good, better than that in fact. The majority gives lip service to DIY at best.

IMO it is important to champion the sandbox way of play so that it is not forgotten and dull conformity becomes the ONLY TRUE WAY that its supporters claim it is. There are many ways to play and IMO sandbox is one of the very best. IMO railroads are the worst possible way to play, because they by design deliberately stifle creativity and they deliberately encourage people not to think. You can't play a old school sandbox game and not automatically have to think as part of the system. Railroads are for those who either can't think or choose not to think, either of which is, in fact, a bad thing for the individual and for society.

Sandboxes are important because that is the only way to get the richest and most innovative play from both the players and the referee.

So radical, I never said that, important, absolutely. Anyone that says DIY and Sandboxes are not important at all? When they will lie to you about a game, then they will lie to you about anything, hold onto your wallet and keep them away from your children.

All game companies? AW assumes that you will create your own world, in fact the whole game is built around that assumption.

You make a good argument for DiY but to claim that it is the only way to sandbox weakens your argument. You can run a sandbox based on published material or including some published material and you can DiY a railroad. I think DiY is the way to go, for me, and I like to see other people do it. So much so that I have a rules set out there for sale but no packaged adventures for sale, even though that is where I am told the money is.

-----------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;984832You make a good argument for DiY but to claim that it is the only way to sandbox weakens your argument. You can run a sandbox based on published material or including some published material and you can DiY a railroad. I think DiY is the way to go, for me, and I like to see other people do it. So much so that I have a rules set out there for sale but no packaged adventures for sale, even though that is where I am told the money is.

-----------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

What is your definition of a sandbox and why do you think it is a good one?

Why don't you have this link in your Signature?  http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules)

You say

Quotethe magic had a unique flavor that made it stand out

Can you tell us a bit more about that, perhaps in its own thread even?

Quote from: Voros;984827All game companies? AW assumes that you will create your own world, in fact the whole game is built around that assumption.

What is AW, you don't find much with Google with only two letters? I would be interested in looking at products that support DIY.

Apocalypse World, I believe.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984522The DIY true sandbox is not a weird claim. It is the true that
What makes it odd is that the vast majority and ALL game companies run around claiming that it is impossible and doing everything they can to convince people to not do what was done bitd and buy this and buy that, because you cannot create your own world.

Look I am all for people learning to do stuff for themselves however I haven't seen a single game company push this as a sale tactics. The closest I seen is Gary Gygax in corporate mode  pushing AD&D as the definitive version of D&D, and marketing of D&D 4th edition in regards to earlier editions. However both of these were focused on RULES not settings. I never seen the World of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc, etc pushed as the one true place to set your D&D adventure. Rather the presentation has been pretty much "here this rich detail setting for your use." And the expansion is driven by the desire of the considerable fan base to see more. And it is the exact same drive that propel people to want to see more of Star Wars and Star Trek.

The original problem in my view is not that publishers are offering settings for sale. The problem is that early on two formats dominated and by the late 90s the alternatives have been all been forgotten. They are:

The tournament style dungeon as the format for describing locations. A key map with each keyed point fully described as to what one sees, and what there.

The travelogue format used for settings. For a long time 95% of setting were presented in a Fodor style travelogue.

Along with all this ever since the release of Dragonlance there been a focus on the release of supplements (adventures or setting sourcebooks) that have a plot or story running through them. That the initial products lays out the basic situation and subsequent products progresses the plot. This gained a lot of traction because it can look epic on the surface and leverage the training that many people learning in writing stories.

And it be clear these adventure paths are far more interactive than a novel. This is not a situation where there only two extremes and a clear b/w line that separates the opposites. It a continuous spectrum with many different types of hybrids.

Part of what I do with my writing about sandbox campaigns is point out the alternatives that despite their universal use there are downsides. The tournament style dungeon doesn't scale so it hard to write up a massive location in a reason page count (for publication) or time (for doing it yourself). The travelogue format has scaling issue. If it covers too broad an area then there more work to do be done on the referee's part to make information usable for a session. If it is narrow then it can be hard to reference what you need during a session. That not matter how loose the adventure path is in the end it requires the players to continue following the leads or the later material will be unused.

With that in mind I focused on developing alternatives like the hexcrawl format, the minimal dungeon, and how to manage a campaign where the players determine its course. I also explain how to use published material to save time while managing a campaign.

For example I running a campaign using my Majestic Fantasy rules which are based on OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. Among the things I came up with there are a half dozen locales that are based on material I purchased.

One of which is the Barrowmaze by Greg Gillispe (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/139762/Barrowmaze-Complete). Now the Barrowmaze has its own backstory involving Nergal the God of the Death with Priests of Orcus and Necromancers of Set fighting each other for control in the present say. My take on it is that it is a ancient First Viridistan Empire ruin that was the site of experimental demonic rituals that. The present day conflict is between a remnant demon cult worshiping the Demon Lord Orcus led by one of the few surviving full Viridians left and clerics of the Church of Set trying to cleanse the dungeon.

The original is filled with mongrelmen which I replaced with goblins due to the background of my setting. And I tweaked a half dozen other elements as well. In short I turned it from something that worked for Greg's setting into something that fits mine.

I stuck Barrowmaze in my campaign as well as the rumors that would lead the players to it (among other rumors) because it is a well-craft very extensive mega-dungeon. And some groups like exploring dungeons so if the current group wanted to they have the opportunity to do so.

It part of my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands, because I ignore the author background, and re-editing to fit how my setting works. Since I have undead, forces of chaos, and the module as a whole is well written, it wasn't particularly hard to do nor it took a lot of time (other than reading the thing the first time through).

The important takeaway from all of this should be that you as the referee are in control. That the referee has always been control. The idea of that there any pure way of doing this is ludicrous. The only thing one should be cautious of and start asking question about is when you feel that somebody else or something else is telling that your way is wrong or you ought to be doing something.

My approach has been: here what I do, why I do it, and the consequences both good and bad. As far as publishing goes the sole value of a published campaign aide (adventures and setting) is to save the referee time. That if you want to make a campaign aide have broad appeal that you have to keep in mind that most campaigns are kitbash of whatever interests a referee. So it on the author to lay out clearly what the are the assumptions of the adventures so the buyer can figure out where best to place it in his campaign.

Finally I will add that it is human nature to share and collaborate. The unnatural state is for everybody to being on their own island doing their own thing. The reason the OSR is so successful at revitalizing classic D&D is that culture of sharing content is the bedrock of all we do. The most influential in the OSR are those who share the most.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984522Rob is in the tiny, tiny minority that does anything other than push imitation as the only way to go. I went and looked up his writeup on world building and sandboxes and it is pretty good, better than that in fact. The majority gives lip service to DIY at best.

Appreciate the compliment. The point of my writing to make things that are useful for people to use.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984522There are many ways to play and IMO sandbox is one of the very best.

No argument from me  

Quote from: Crimhthan;984522IMO railroads are the worst possible way to play, because they by design deliberately stifle creativity and they deliberately encourage people not to think.

I don't agree with this in part. My view is that the problem with railroads that it is hit or miss compared to a sandbox where the players are driving the direction of the campaign. The problem of railroads is the same problem with a writing a good novel or direction a good film. It not the lack of choice is the issue rather it hard to to reliably make something interesting with the style.

And note before you frame a reply about how I am advocating that the players don't have any choice reread what I said. I am emphasizing that given a 100 refereew trying to run railroaded campaign that most (60% to 70%) of them will suck because they will be boring as fuck. The lack of choices just compound the issues as it hampers the players ability to get away from the boring shit they are experiencing. The other campaigns will be a fun ride that that players will be willing to go along.

For you or I to tell those referees that they are doing it wrong is very rude. For whatever reason they made it work and everybody had fun which in the point is the point of what we are doing with the hobby. To have fun. And I do to the contribute is write about alternatives to make this happened while keeping in mine it not the only way and it will be combined with other methods.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;984886Apocalypse World, I believe.

Interesting, looks like there would be some good ideas there to use.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984869What is your definition of a sandbox and why do you think it is a good one?

Why don't you have this link in your Signature?  http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules)

You say


Can you tell us a bit more about that, perhaps in its own thread even?

My definition of a sandbox includes several elements. There should be an area in which the player-characters can move, terrain and political features, people and other beings with whom they can interact so that anywhere they go, there they are. A sandbox needn't be really large but the larger it is, the more options the characters have. They may be constrained by _circumstances_ to go to a particular place and/or do a certain thing but that should be temporary. In fact, the GM may set up a temporary railroad within the sandbox that way and it is ok. Also, player character actions can change the environment. That is all but inevitable with very powerful characters but even a low-level fire mage can burn down an inn (and it wasn't her fault) the fact that the inn was burned down becomes part of the setting, although the inn might be rebuilt.

It is not quite part of my definition but I prefer that the player-characters have roots in the area and relationships with people other than the other player-characters.

I'll  have a sig from now on. I didn't before, out of laziness. I didn't say that about the magic system. C.J. Carella said it in the intro to the game. I may start a thread about the magic system in the game. It is the thing that C.J. said impressed him the most about it and he used Glory  Road mages in his campaigns in other systems. Maybe he'll drop by to say a few words.

I have always preferred DiY but I never thought it connected to the idea of a sandbox, which I also support. One can have a DiY railroad or put a published adventure in your sandbox. I put "Keep on the Borderlands" in my sandbox campaign so long ago that I was still running ADD&D1 and it was ok. I never did it again but I have read modules and enjoyed them and I might use one again sometime. I admit that I have been at a con, I don't go to many, and one DM who seemed quite pleasant and we had a nice chat. And she was also hot but she announced "I am going to run (name of module forgotten)" I went and played at a different table, with a GM I didn't know who did not turn me on because it was DiY.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984522The DIY true sandbox is not a weird claim.

Yeah it is. It's very weird. It's weirdness has nothing to do with gaming history though. The weirdness of requiring DIY for a sandbox and the easiness of doing DIY are separate thoughts. Don't conflate them.

DIY is easy. Any reasonably intelligent, educated, creative person can do DIY GMing. The proof is that so many of us did it with only the minimal aide of the three little brown books. I suppose there are some people who think that DIY is hard. Heck there are a lot of people who think that simple arithmetic, grammatically correct sentences, and using words with more than one definition are hard or maybe even impossible.

As regards companies, game companies are in the business of selling stuff. I wouldn't expect a game company to spend a lot of effort telling me why I don't need to buy the stuff they sell. Expecting the company to do that would be stupid because it is not in their self-interest. Gygax initially had an expectation that people would DIY their own dungeons and settings because he never in his wildest dreams thought he could make real money out of giving people stuff that he thought they would enjoy making up themselves and that he though they could fairly easily do themselves. Then he realized there was real money in giving people pre-created setting stuff for D&D and TSR did exactly that.

QuoteAnyone that says DIY and Sandboxes are not important at all?

Is correct. This is a leisure activity for people in the first world. Nothing about it is very important. I happen to like DIY, but I don't delude myself that my preference in a niche leisure activity is important. Anyone who says it is important?...well they are probably lying to you about something.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;984886Apocalypse World, I believe.

Yep that's what I meant. The actual game would probably give Crimhthan an aneuryism though.

Of course DIY isnt the true sandbox.

Quote from: Voros;985132Yep that's what I meant. The actual game would probably give Crimhthan an aneuryism though.

Why, do you suppose?

Quote from: Arminius;985280Why, do you suppose?

AW has some semi-OOC mechanics that allow the players to contribute to the world building that super-trad players usually hate.

Anyone up for a game of Vampire: The Masquerade ran in the old-school sandbox style with the setting and rules of VTM First Edition?

Quote from: Crimhthan;983867Sounds like they succeeded with the product, I hope it inspires to you do something completely your own, if it is not until you retire and have more time.

Oh, I've done a fair bit (http://www.soltakss.com) of DIY in existing sandboxes.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984522The DIY true sandbox is not a weird claim. It is the true that
.

How may people have agreed with the claim? Few would argue that DIY and Sandbox tend to go hand in hand. But no one seems to agree that sandbox=DIY. Can you point to a single blog entry or thread on the internet where this claim is repeated by others?

It seems to me that sandbox versus railroad and derived and DiY are two axes on a graph. Since it's the real world, there are more than two dimensions. Most campaigns aren't any of the four extremes but they are a mix. I think Sandbox/DiY fits most of my campaigns.  I guess I have been on the extreme end of the DiY axis since that one year I used "Keep on the Borderland."

So, Crimhthan, I remain unconvinced. I do see a resonance between DiY and sandbox but it isn't enough to make your claim that all true sandboxes are DiY.

Not to mention they played OD&D sometimes using the map from Outdoor Survival.

How much and who used it I dont recall. But they must have liked it a-lot to suggest it as something to have in the OD&D manual.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-plnrGOEc1FU/UebSKS-tY9I/AAAAAAAAGb4/k4zoMD7KeP8/w720-h594-no/946892_10152992506980291_1882422681_n.jpg)

Outdoor survival was not the best $10 (or whatever it cost circa 1974-5) that I ever spent. It's a pretty board though.

Its a fair solo. Not great. But not bad either. But it came packed with the survival guide and it was in park gift shops all over.

If it had had a paragraph system for events and encounters, like Barbarian Prince or Voyage of the BSM Pandora, it could have been a nifty game. In fact that would be a nice little project.

I took the Outdoor Survivalh map and turned it into this per the recommendation in Wilderness & Underworld Adventures of OD&D.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1350[/ATTACH] (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/Sv4snweRg8I/AAAAAAAAAn0/ZWHcEkqiRpY/s1600-h/southlandsm.jpg)
Click on the above for a full resolution version of the map

Very nice map.

"What I like is RIGHT!  And what you like is WRONG!"

Okay, we're done here.  Somebody fetch me a beer.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Please don't close this thread! The entertainment value is priceless. Rarely do you find a poster as audacious and obtuse as the OP. This is gold, GOLD. Even platinum. PLATINUM.

"The sandbox you can perceive is not the true sandbox."

"If you meet the sandbox on the road, kill it."

"To deny the sandbox within another is to deny the sandbox within yourself."

A true sandbox session is one where you use a sandbox for your terrain sculpting!

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rAVwJAMAnMI/T7dpc9C--GI/AAAAAAAAARw/qgj53kMEDNE/s1600/000_0806.JPG)

Quote from: EOTB;98398570% of multiple unrelated families, of all ages and sexes, took up a fairly esoteric hobby at least "semi-regularly".  Huh.  Maybe you should bottle that and sell it to WOTC.  Because they'd be dying for it.  You practically have an obligation to the hobby to publish what must be your vast store of gaming materials you've DIY'd over the years, because I know a bunch of gamers that would be overjoyed to get a 70% semi-regular participation rate of all their relatives in periodically occurring games of D&D.  

After reading about this bizarre D&D cult, I was thinking that it would make a great Jack Chick tract. :-)

Quote from: DocJones;986085After reading about this bizarre D&D cult, I was thinking that it would make a great Jack Chick tract. :-)

https://www.fecundity.com/darkdung/darkdung.php?page=1

You're welcome.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986011"The sandbox you can perceive is not the true sandbox."

"If you meet the sandbox on the road, kill it."

"To deny the sandbox within another is to deny the sandbox within yourself."

Did you forget "there is no sandbox" and "sandboxes aren't what they seem":D?

Don't let the cat near this 'pure' sandbox.

"Sometimes a sandbox is just a sandbox."

Jesus said, "My sandbox is not of this world. If it were, my players would fight to prevent my arrest by the WOTC leaders. But now my sandbox is from another place."

I remember your Sandbox now you'll remember mine.

And don't forget, when your kids get 'too old' for sandboxes, the components (lumber, sand, patch of grassless dirt in your yard) can be converted into a lovely horseshoes pitch.:D

Quote from: Willie the Duck;986556And don't forget, when your kids get 'too old' for sandboxes, the components (lumber, sand, patch of grassless dirt in your yard) can be converted into a lovely horseshoes pitch.:D

pffft!  Serious Horseshoes players all know that pure horseshoes pitch's are NOT built from re-purposed materials!

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;986569pffft!  Serious Horseshoes players all know that pure horseshoes pitch's are NOT built from re-purposed materials!

Do Serious Horseshoes players feel it is important to champion the pure horseshoe pitches, such that they are not forgotten and dull re-purposed material pitches become the ONLY TRUE WAY that its supporters claim it is? Do they say that there are many ways to play and in their opinion new-bought material pitches is one of the very best? And that in their opinion re-purposed material pitches are the worst possible way to play, because they by design deliberately stifle creativity and they deliberately encourage people not to think? That re-purposed material pitches are for those who either can't think or choose not to think, either of which is, in fact, a bad thing for the individual and for society?:D

Anybody up for some sandbox Vampire: The Masquerade or sandbox Sailor Moon?

Let's just close this thread, shall we?

Quote from: Arminius;986601Let's just close this thread, shall we?

If they close it, another will open ...

If I have a campaign where I let my players choose adventure hook or make up their ow , and then I hyper focus on prep on that direction. Prep so that it is fully scripted and most possible outcomes covered, nothing else is prepared except for a map maybe. Is that a linear or sandbox campaign?

If it works for you then I wouldn't worry about classifying it.

An infinitely branching tree? It isn't linear, but it probably involves spherical cows.

More seriously, "sandbox" is generally tied up with true freedom and agency on the part of the players.  A branching adventure can still contain "forced" events (coincidences, introduction of hitherto unknown facts, convenient NPC decisions) to guide the game along a certain arc. Just like an improvising GM whose main concern is "story structure" can throw in complications when needed to introduce tension or pace the game. So, branching in itself doesn't really guarantee anything.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Johnnii;986668If I have a campaign where I let my players choose adventure hook or make up their ow , and then I hyper focus on prep on that direction. Prep so that it is fully scripted and most possible outcomes covered, nothing else is prepared except for a map maybe. Is that a linear or sandbox campaign?

Well, the important consideration would be "if the players, having chosen to go one way and the GM having then "hyper focused" prep in that direction, then decide to go a different way...are they allowed to?"

Give my players a sandbox and they just sit there. They want a mission, and for their sins I give them one. And after it's finished they are never going to want another one.

Seriously. Sandbox absolutely does not work with my group. 13 minutes into our last session, which ment about 3 minutes into actual play, one player piped up with "can I just kill something?"  If I tell them Go here and do this thing" they are happy. I can put a map, labled with interesting things in front of them and they just ignore it.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;986762Well, the important consideration would be "if the players, having chosen to go one way and the GM having then "hyper focused" prep in that direction, then decide to go a different way...are they allowed to?"

yes. That is what a sandbox campaign is. The players are free to play with the toys in the way that they see fit. It is not "module of the week play".

Quote from: DavetheLost;986772Give my players a sandbox and they just sit there. They want a mission, and for their sins I give them one. And after it's finished they are never going to want another one.

Seriously. Sandbox absolutely does not work with my group. 13 minutes into our last session, which ment about 3 minutes into actual play, one player piped up with "can I just kill something?"  If I tell them Go here and do this thing" they are happy. I can put a map, labled with interesting things in front of them and they just ignore it.

Sheesh.  What a lame group.  So, if you roll them up a bunch of rumours about cool stuff that may or may not be going on around town they just look at you and go "cool, so what should we do?"

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;986762Well, the important consideration would be "if the players, having chosen to go one way and the GM having then "hyper focused" prep in that direction, then decide to go a different way...are they allowed to?"

Of course, then it's all focus in that direction instead.

Basically, nothing exists or is in a static mode unless it affects the PCs

Still a sandbox?

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;986775Sheesh.  What a lame group.  So, if you roll them up a bunch of rumours about cool stuff that may or may not be going on around town they just look at you and go "cool, so what should we do?"

Sounds like my group. We've only been playing this campaign for 12 years, playing weekly, and they still mill about not deciding what to do if there is a lull.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;986775Sheesh.  What a lame group.  So, if you roll them up a bunch of rumours about cool stuff that may or may not be going on around town they just look at you and go "cool, so what should we do?"

They are getting better, but yeah, that's basically what they do.  But as soon as an NPC says "I need someone to go do X" they are off like a shot.  The sandbox as the Holy Grail of campaign style paradigm collapses in the face of players who don't want a sandbox.  Mine want clear missions. Given the profusion of adventure modules being sold for various games it seems they are not alone in this.

Quote from: DavetheLost;986802They are getting better, but yeah, that's basically what they do.  But as soon as an NPC says "I need someone to go do X" they are off like a shot.  The sandbox as the Holy Grail of campaign style paradigm collapses in the face of players who don't want a sandbox.  Mine want clear missions. Given the profusion of adventure modules being sold for various games it seems they are not alone in this.

What about when there are NPCs suggesting they do things at a slightly higher rate than they can do them (e.g. due to time/space map situation) and some of them are time-sensitive and/or have pros/cons to their requirements and results, and/or are opposed or contradictory, and/or there are multiple ways to try to approach the endeavors suggested by the NPCs, etc?

Quote from: DavetheLost;986802They are getting better, but yeah, that's basically what they do.  But as soon as an NPC says "I need someone to go do X" they are off like a shot.  The sandbox as the Holy Grail of campaign style paradigm collapses in the face of players who don't want a sandbox.  Mine want clear missions. Given the profusion of adventure modules being sold for various games it seems they are not alone in this.

I hate that sort of shit.  I'd stop running the game.

Sadly, a LOT of people seem totally unable to conceive of "looking for adventure."

Quote from: DavetheLost;986772Sandbox absolutely does not work with my group. 13 minutes into our last session, which ment about 3 minutes into actual play, one player piped up with "can I just kill something?"  If I tell them Go here and do this thing" they are happy. I can put a map, labled with interesting things in front of them and they just ignore it.

Quote from: soltakss;986785We've only been playing this campaign for 12 years, playing weekly, and they still mill about not deciding what to do if there is a lull.

(https://m.popkey.co/939dac/yYWN7_s-200x150.gif)

Quote from: DavetheLost;986802Mine want clear missions. Given the profusion of adventure modules being sold for various games it seems they are not alone in this.

It's a feedback loop. Game comes with canned adventure, group plays canned adventure, group seeks another canned adventure when the first one is done. Rolling their own never crosses their minds.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986834Sadly, a LOT of people seem totally unable to conceive of "looking for adventure."

Nerds who dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back for their imagination and creativity for playing roleplaying games nevertheless can't figure out what comes next after creating their special snowflake characters unless it's spoonfed to them.

Fuck those assholes.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986834I hate that sort of shit.  I'd stop running the game.

Sadly, a LOT of people seem totally unable to conceive of "looking for adventure."

   "Looking for adventure" is imperialist, colonialist, exploitative and oppressive.

   No, I'm not being entirely sarcastic. It may be my imagination, but there seems to have been a serious rise in the reluctance level of heroes in genre media over my lifetime.

It is your imagination. Spurred from hanging out on the net too much.

Quote from: Voros;986855It is your imagination. Spurred from hanging out on the net too much.

   I don't know; witness Jackson's characterization of Aragorn as compared to Tolkien's, or the treatment of the child heroes in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe film. Two anecdotes don't make a pattern, of course.

You mean how Viggo made Aragorn actually charismatic instead of the stuffed shirt bore of the book?

Quote from: Voros;986855It is your imagination. Spurred from hanging out on the net too much.

August 26th, 2017 - a date that will live in infamy - Voros and Vulmea actually agree on something.

Then I stand corrected. Where are all the proactive adventure-seeking protagonists I'm missing?

Arya, Spiderman, Outlander, Jonathan Strange, etc.

And not being proactive isn't some imperialist critique. The great Film Noir protgaonists are hardly defined by their go-getting personalities.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986834I hate that sort of shit.  I'd stop running the game.

Sadly, a LOT of people seem totally unable to conceive of "looking for adventure."

Being able to conceive of it is not equivalent to wanting to do it. Most people don't start out as adventurers and many characters in RPG don't assume that they are going to be adventuring forever.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;986900Being able to conceive of it is not equivalent to wanting to do it. Most people don't start out as adventurers and many characters in RPG don't assume that they are going to be adventuring forever.

Saying "my character is a reluctant adventurer" is not the same as the PLAYER sitting there with his thumbs up his ass unless somebody walks in with a sandwich board saying "ADVENTURE HERE!"

Which is what posts 170 and 174 are EXPLICITLY talking about.

DO try to keep up.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986904Saying "my character is a reluctant adventurer" is not the same as the PLAYER sitting there with his thumbs up his ass unless somebody walks in with a sandwich board saying "ADVENTURE HERE!"

Which is what posts 170 and 174 are EXPLICITLY talking about.

DO try to keep up.

I know that a group of players having to be spoon-fed can be a problem. However, I still take the point of view that one of my first player-characters was behaving quite reasonably when he sold the magic sword that had been given to him out of his treasure, went home, paid his father's gambling debts and tried to retire. The GM managed to drag him back onto the Glory Road but he was doing the normal thing.

Quote from: Johnnii;986784Of course, then it's all focus in that direction instead.

Basically, nothing exists or is in a static mode unless it affects the PCs

Still a sandbox?

Assuming this is a serious line of inquiry and not some sort of "stump the grognards" game...

Again, I tend to think of a "sandbox" as equivalent to what I used to call a "world-based game", or occasionally a "clockwork universe", or really far back in the day, "a campaign" or "wilderness adventure" as presented in Book 3 of OD&D. Another term I've seen used is "status quo campaign". Hereabouts some also talk about "world in motion" games. The content of these games is generally produced by some combination of pregame prep and on-fly-generation but for me an important principle is that the world behaves as if it has an existence independent of the PCs.

Yes, in theory, you could generate everything on the spur of the moment as needed, as long as it doesn't contradict facts that have already been established, and in theory you could pregenerate an entire campaign or at least the next week's session in the form of a branching tree. This is a bit like choosing extensive form vs. normal form to represent a game in Game Theory--both can be used but in some cases one or the other will be easier to use. In this case the branching form taking you from scene to scene makes it far harder to account for every possibility compared to the use of maps, description of situation, and principles for updating the situation over time.

Also, the maps-and-situation approach lends itself easily to the the principle of "independent existence". A GM can certainly nudge things one way or another but the setup is sufficient for the PCs to explore the setting/situation without second-guessing the way events play out. With a CYOA-style scenario it's very easy for the writer to build in twists or story beats to make the game more dramatic or to modulate the challenge. This sounds fine except that it necessarily undermines the agency of the player-character. For example, if a PC opens the door to a storeroom in a department store and sees several shadowy figures, they might suspect that Figure A is a mannequin while Figure B is a hidden enemy. If the world is independent of the PC, there will be an actual answer to that question. In a branching story, you could have "Player attacks A -> mannequin is A" and "Player attacks B -> mannequin is B". I'm not saying a GM couldn't make the same thing happen while running a "map-based" scenario. But the form of the branching story lends itself better to this sort of thing. The amount of variables to track, and the number of branches to write in, make it much harder to to write a branching scenario with "independent existence".

Quote from: Johnnii;986784Of course, then it's all focus in that direction instead.

Basically, nothing exists or is in a static mode unless it affects the PCs

Still a sandbox?

Well obviously, from the pcs perspective nothing "exists" untill they become aware of it.  I'm not sure what your point is.  Are you suggesting that there actually is no such thing as a "sandbox-style campaign" since as soon as the players choose a path they wish to follow that path then becomes a standard linear adventure or something like that?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;986907I know that a group of players having to be spoon-fed can be a problem. However, I still take the point of view that one of my first player-characters was behaving quite reasonably when he sold the magic sword that had been given to him out of his treasure, went home, paid his father's gambling debts and tried to retire. The GM managed to drag him back onto the Glory Road but he was doing the normal thing.

So you had a character go home and try to retire.  In other words you quit the game?

Retirement could be an option, and a good one if it's in-character and the player would like to have that PC retire and play another one. It could even be a kind of victory condition for that PC, and/or a well-behaved way for a player to stop playing in a campaign, or to switch characters. The only weird behavior to me would be the GM thinking retirement is a problem and trying to bend the situation to not have that happen.

I've had players who want to relax, explore, check on which of their maps is more accurate and map new places, seduce & court women, get drunk and hold parties, do research, start a business, start various new criminal schemes they hatch, take up a new religion, work a job, start a riot, go hide treasure in various places, and other various not-really-adventure activities. As long as that's what they are choosing to want to play out, and are enjoying it, and I'm a flexible enough GM to be able to provide that (which can be challenging sometimes), then why would I see that as a problem and try to force them to "adventure" in a conventional way?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;986907I know that a group of players having to be spoon-fed can be a problem. However, I still take the point of view that one of my first player-characters was behaving quite reasonably when he sold the magic sword that had been given to him out of his treasure, went home, paid his father's gambling debts and tried to retire. The GM managed to drag him back onto the Glory Road but he was doing the normal thing.

So... you created a character... to promptly retire...

You didnt even bother engaging the premise? I know it probably wasnt the intent. But players pulling stunts like this allways comes across to me as a dick move. Effectively saying "Fuck you I dont want to play!" or dicking with the DM to try and accomodate that sort of move.

Quote from: Omega;987037So... you created a character... to promptly retire...

You didnt even bother engaging the premise? I know it probably wasnt the intent. But players pulling stunts like this allways comes across to me as a dick move. Effectively saying "Fuck you I dont want to play!" or dicking with the DM to try and accomodate that sort of move.

He had been adventuring for six of his months, about twelve of our sessions. The people he had been running with were in no danger as far as he knew. They had found the people that they had been looking for, defeated them and turned the survivor over to the authorities. While I knew that we would find something to do, he did not. I had another character to run if it came to that.

His whole background, originating with the GM, was his deceased father's gambling debts making it very hard on the family. So he was a responsible son and oldest brother and sold the sword and went home. He could have stayed home (and I would have run a different character) but he got a message from his pals that there was a new danger. So he went back on the road.

The sale of the sword caused some hard feelings with two of the other players. One of them talked about it in character and the other just bitched OoC. It made the group less effective but I wouldn't buy it back and go into debt again, so there were some hard feelings.

I think the retirement move as legit as any other in a supposed 'sandbox' campaign. Many great westerns, from Shane to The Hired Hand and California are based on that premise.

I guess if you are bored with a character and want to start a new one, retirement is a way to go about that.  I'd be more inclined to go out in a blaze of glory.  I have enough family drama to deal with in my real life existence.  My gaming is about adventure.  Not retirement to help my imaginary family get by.  Most genre fiction I've read in which retirement is part of the story are about the protagonist coming out of retirement to kick ass.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987102I guess if you are bored with a character and want to start a new one, retirement is a way to go about that.  I'd be more inclined to go out in a blaze of glory.  I have enough family drama to deal with in my real life existence.  My gaming is about adventure.  Not retirement to help my imaginary family get by.  Most genre fiction I've read in which retirement is part of the story are about the protagonist coming out of retirement to kick ass.

Oh, I liked playing Oscar and I figured he might be out adventuring again eventually. The biggest bone of contention was selling the damn sword. It was something that someone who considered himself "an adventurer" might never do. Oscar considered himself a former militia captain who had been part of a posse. The sword was a really great thing to have but not vital. When duty/adventure called and he went on the road again, he kind of wished that he had the sword but he would not have bought it back if he could have. He did kick ass.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;986907I know that a group of players having to be spoon-fed can be a problem. However, I still take the point of view that one of my first player-characters was behaving quite reasonably when he sold the magic sword that had been given to him out of his treasure, went home, paid his father's gambling debts and tried to retire. The GM managed to drag him back onto the Glory Road but he was doing the normal thing. His whole background, originating with the GM, was his deceased father's gambling debts making it very hard on the family.

Interesting to note that here is a player who makes an effort to actually roleplay his character, within the background and motivations given him by the GM, and people are giving him shit for it and calling it a dick move?  Please.  He even brought the character back into play when a fresh motivation to adventure was dangled in front of him.

Maybe the GM shouldn't have given a background that included such easily fulfilled "victory conditions". This character "won" his game.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;986907I know that a group of players having to be spoon-fed can be a problem. However, I still take the point of view that one of my first player-characters was behaving quite reasonably when he sold the magic sword that had been given to him out of his treasure, went home, paid his father's gambling debts and tried to retire. The GM managed to drag him back onto the Glory Road but he was doing the normal thing.

Did you make a new character?

As for retiring early, I had a campaign where the players did exactly one mission and they retired.

The system was GURPS and the setting was my Majestic Wilderlands a fantasy setting based on the old Judges Guild City-State of the Invincible Overlord. For this campaign one player made an agent of the Black Lotus, the Invincible Overlord's Secret Police, and the other players made a blacksmith. (Could use a 2H hammer as a weapon).  The mission was to investigate what an outlying baron was doing in a region known for it rebellions against the Overlord's authority.

It turned to out they were making the setting's first cannons (14th-15th century style siege bombards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombard_(weapon))) and dragon powder (gunpowder). The players figured it out (the agent was literally shoveling shit at one point. Shit was used to make saltpeter one of the primary components).  Got the details of the Baron's plan and who was backing them and returned to City-State and made their report. The reward was generous enough (the agent got a promotion, the blacksmith was made a master of the guild and contract to work on cannons). That afterwards we talked about and agree that these character as written would retire from adventuring.

This campaign was fun overall and the players enjoyed the hell out of solving the mystery. However the decision to retire felt like the most natural course of actions that would occurs.

So we moved on to the next campaign.

The upshot of this is that while rare it is logical that a character or even the party would find themselves in the position that most logical thing to do is to retire. Now if it is a single character then all that needed is for the players to roll up a new one. But if it is the group, the referee should recognize that does happen and move on.

Quote from: estar;987298Did you make a new character?

I had one ready.  She was almost as high in level as Oscar.

Quote from: DavetheLost;987289Interesting to note that here is a player who makes an effort to actually roleplay his character, within the background and motivations given him by the GM, and people are giving him shit for it and calling it a dick move?  Please.  He even brought the character back into play when a fresh motivation to adventure was dangled in front of him.

Maybe the GM shouldn't have given a background that included such easily fulfilled "victory conditions". This character "won" his game.

I don't think anyone is calling it a "dick move" anymore.  At first, it sounded like it might be because it was brought up in response to a discussion about players refusing to engage in the game in a way that the game is fundamentally designed for.  If a player signs up for a game of D&D, then refuses to actually go out and visit any dungeons...decides instead he's going to be a shopkeeper or something, that's kind of a dick move.  Personally, I don't really see the point of "retiring" if the character is still viable as a "vessel for adventuring" just for reason of character reality.  I mean if you are still intending to be a part of the game you're just going to roll up another character anyway.  However, I wouldn't really care about my character's background anyway...that's just me.  But I can understand the retirement angle the way its subsequently been explained and yeah, not really a dick move.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;987314I had one ready.  She was almost as high in level as Oscar.

I don't see a problem then. Old character retires as it makes sense. You, the player, stick around in the campaign with a new character.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987317I don't think anyone is calling it a "dick move" anymore.  At first, it sounded like it might be because it was brought up in response to a discussion about players refusing to engage in the game in a way that the game is fundamentally designed for.  If a player signs up for a game of D&D, then refuses to actually go out and visit any dungeons...decides instead he's going to be a shopkeeper or something, that's kind of a dick move.

Is it possible to do a dick move? Sure.  But the criteria you are talking about is not it.

My experience is that it is a player being deliberating disruptive to the common goals of the party whatever they may be.  If a 4 or 5 players in a group wants to build a shop for whatever reason, and the one player keeps wanting to  go off to the dungeon is being disrupted. Then the latter is pulling a dick move. The same if the situation is reversed.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987102I guess if you are bored with a character and want to start a new one, retirement is a way to go about that.  I'd be more inclined to go out in a blaze of glory.  I have enough family drama to deal with in my real life existence.  My gaming is about adventure.  Not retirement to help my imaginary family get by.  Most genre fiction I've read in which retirement is part of the story are about the protagonist coming out of retirement to kick ass.

In order to come out of retirement to kick ass, one sort of needs to go into retirement. I think it's pretty interesting when there are more PCs than players, and also many NPCs they know and sometimes do things with, run for a bit by players and/or the GM, and the PCs and NPCs have their own interests and spend time doing things other than adventure with the same group of people all the time. I also like it when serious injury can lead to a need to rest for a long time, and there are enough characters that that doesn't cause all the players to do nothing and try to pass time until everyone is all healed up, but instead it means there is a reason why some characters might need to stay someplace to convalesce while others join the group, and perhaps guards ought to be hired for the people healing, or to beef up the rest of the group, or whatever, and some people are some just want to spend the summer in that nice fishing village, and another lost his arm and always wanted to have is own tavern so he does that, and the wizard wants to try to work on projects for a while so he's at the wizard's guild for a while, etc etc.

It also nicely completely removes the context of "we can't let the PCs die, get seriously hurt, or split the group, or our game is borked" because all that is fairly common and normal.

Quote from: estar;987325Is it possible to do a dick move? Sure.  But the criteria you are talking about is not it.

My experience is that it is a player being deliberating disruptive to the common goals of the party whatever they may be.  If a 4 or 5 players in a group wants to build a shop for whatever reason, and the one player keeps wanting to  go off to the dungeon is being disrupted. Then the latter is pulling a dick move. The same if the situation is reversed.

I think refusing to play the game while playing the game is sort of a dick move.  not the only sort of course...


But again, I agree that retiring the way it's come to be explained since the original mention of it isn't such.

Quote from: Skarg;987331In order to come out of retirement to kick ass, one sort of needs to go into retirement...

yeah, of course.  And as I've said, if the situation is "I've retired from adventuring, but I could be convinced to join back up maybe..." then cool.  Not a dick move.

Or if its "my character has decided he needs to retire now so I'm going to roll up a new one..." not a dick move.

However, If it's "yeah it makes sense for my character based upon his background to retire and go be a farmer now so therefore I'll be doing that for the remainder of the campaign..."  well...kinda dickish.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987332I think refusing to play the game while playing the game is sort of a dick move.  not the only sort of course...

RPG are expansive by default. There are characters and there is a setting. A player can do anything that his character can do within that setting. There is no wrong way of playing it in the sense you are alluding too. D&D is no more about dungeon crawling than it is about owning shop. Both are possible, both have been done in a campaign using the rules of various editions of D&D including the original.

Having said that it is also a group activity with an individual acting as a referee. As such to make the campaign logistically work there has to be compromises. The possibilities are broad enough that each group as to work out for themselves what those compromises are. The problem being talking about here is when a single player or two are deliberately disruptive to whatever the rest are trying to focus on. Regardless if it is a owning a shop, exploring a dungeon, playing the game of thrones, or planning the next heist. Whatever it is, that player who disrupting things is being a dick.

Quote from: estar;987341RPG are expansive by default. There are characters and there is a setting. A player can do anything that his character can do within that setting. There is no wrong way of playing it in the sense you are alluding too. D&D is no more about dungeon crawling than it is about owning shop. Both are possible, both have been done in a campaign using the rules of various editions of D&D including the original.

Having said that it is also a group activity with an individual acting as a referee. As such to make the campaign logistically work there has to be compromises. The possibilities are broad enough that each group as to work out for themselves what those compromises are. The problem being talking about here is when a single player or two are deliberately disruptive to whatever the rest are trying to focus on. Regardless if it is a owning a shop, exploring a dungeon, playing the game of thrones, or planning the next heist. Whatever it is, that player who disrupting things is being a dick.

Sure.  I think there are some expectations in any given game about what the characters are going to be doing.  If I'm playing Call of Cthulhu, my character is going to take an active interest in thwarting the nefarious goals of various cultists and the foul things they might bring about.  I'm not going to decide my character is too frightened and that it makes no sense for him or her to be off fighting Shoggoths so therefore, he/she is going to go home and go back to being an accountant.  

D&D is a game of adventure.  It isn't a game of shopkeeping or farming.  If a person wants to do that, he'd be better off playing some of the other, lesser-known rpgs like Farms & Fowl or perhaps Dullness & Drudgery.  :)

But is the statement that D&D is no more about dungeon crawling than it is about shopkeeping meant to be taken seriously?  How many of the examples of play in the various rule books revolve around adventures in shop keeping?  How many published avdentures focus on the travails of the shop keeper's daily operation versus dungeon-crawling adventures?  Have both "been done?"  Sure...all kinds of stuff has been done using the rules.  But the primary assumption is you are a group of adventurers going into dungeons and getting gold...of course "dungeon" can mean several things.  Could be an overland adventure or a castle or a space ship or what ever.

Keeping to my comment elsewhere about a sandbox being structurally conceived to support multiple parties, what I'd like to do in this situation is place the retired PC in a specific location and agree that the player will generate a new character assuming they want to keep playing (and that the GM only has time to handle one party). The PC remains available for the player to bring back if desired or if world-level events require it. Practicalities of play and enjoyment of the group trump strict adherence to procedures or definitions, though. So for example if the players as a group decide to become farmers but they still want "adventure", the GM might contrive a "monster of the week" game where the community is repeatedly threatened, or at least develop details on local obstacles and challenges to improving and expanding the village, maintaining relations with local authorities, etc. Whereas a single retired PC could just live their life in peace and, if there's no interest in resuming play with him/her, the impact of major events could be resolved in single dice roll. ("Village overrun by orcs: roll a die and 1-3 he lives, 4-6 he dies unless he makes a saving throw.)

A problem with semi-retired and replacement characters is experience level relative to "the party" as it might be composed at the time the character is brought back/brought into the game. This is an old issue particularly with D&D and I don't think there's a single right answer. My preference is for new PCs to start at 1st level and let the experience charts do the work of creating parity, and the same would probably apply to retired PCs.

Having said all that, though, I'm not surprised that retiring a PC early in the game would cause some friction since old-school D&D generally does have an assumption that PCs are ambitious and/or desperate. I would chalk this one up to the GM not quite thinking through what they were doing.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987344Sure.  I think there are some expectations in any given game about what the characters are going to be doing.  If I'm playing Call of Cthulhu, my character is going to take an active interest in thwarting the nefarious goals of various cultists and the foul things they might bring about.  I'm not going to decide my character is too frightened and that it makes no sense for him or her to be off fighting Shoggoths so therefore, he/she is going to go home and go back to being an accountant.  

D&D is a game of adventure.  It isn't a game of shopkeeping or farming.  If a person wants to do that, he'd be better off playing some of the other, lesser-known rpgs like Farms & Fowl or perhaps Dullness & Drudgery.  :)

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987344But is the statement that D&D is no more about dungeon crawling than it is about shopkeeping meant to be taken seriously?  How many of the examples of play in the various rule books revolve around adventures in shop keeping?

The assumption here that what can be done in a campaign is only defined by what the rules say or focus on. That that very common misconception, what a character can do or focus on is defined by the setting of the campaign. If the D&D rules don't cover it then the referee has to make a ruling by using his reason or some other aide he has adopted.

If you want to make a dungeon and certain other type of adventure locales the D&D rules have explicit support. If you want to build a stronghold many editions of D&D has you covered. Once you get into the other aspect of a fantasy setting then things get spotty from edition to edition. For example Pathfinder has rules you can use for running a shop, while with Moldavy/Cook B/x D&D the referee will have to design something himself.

I realize it may sound heretical but any RPG can be used to run any setting however it may take more work sometimes a lot of work to run certain settings with a given system. To the point to where only a handful of people bother, if even that, trying to do so with the time they have to spend with their hobby. The reason I emphasize this flexibility that the far more common case of this in action is the very topic that this part of the thread is on. The group or a player wanting to run a shop in a game that has much of it word count devoted to dungeon crawls.

I say this to emphasize that the rules has nothing to do with the problem. It purely a group issue with the player being a dick. That attempting to drag in the rules is a distraction. It is sufficient to say that a player or two is trying to waste a group of people precious hobby time by being a dick in this regard.

And the shop versus dungeon is not something theoretical for me. One campaign climactic end was the successful opening of a crossroads inn. In the campaign I running now with OD&D, in the second session at 1st level the players opened up a shop and spend the next two sessions doing what needed to get up and running. Why? Because they using it as their home base in the city the campaign is centered around. Then several sessions they leveraged what they found in some dungeon exploration into buying a small merchant ship. Which they intend to use to explore around the Trident Gulf on which shores their home city is located on.

I had a short but successful campaign where one of the players was quite happy with becoming a master of the blacksmith guild and granted a monopoly on the manufacture of Siege Bombards for the Invincible Overlord.




 

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987344How many published avdentures focus on the travails of the shop keeper's daily operation versus dungeon-crawling adventures?  Have both "been done?"  Sure...all kinds of stuff has been done using the rules.  But the primary assumption is you are a group of adventurers going into dungeons and getting gold...of course "dungeon" can mean several things.  Could be an overland adventure or a castle or a space ship or what ever.

All I assume that the player are their characters within the setting of the Majestic Wilderlands free to do whatever can be done as their character within that world. Again it not the rules that define the possibilities but the setting.

Zevious, the shopkeeping phase (to put it loosely) of D&D is there; it just happens to be at upper levels when you're developing a stronghold. AD&D 1e DMG goes into this, IIRC.

RuneQuest 3 had the shopkeeper problem in reverse. Your character was likely to be a shopkeeper (with a shopkeeper's skills and possessions) who heard the call to Adventure. Joining the militia was an option to get a character some prior experience, but if you wanted any combat skill at all it really wasn't so optional.

The last RQ3 game I ran the players looked at their characters at the end of character generation and said "Why do we want to become adventurers again?"

When your character is a baker staying home to mind the store seems the more sensible choice.  That is why so many of our RQ3 games seemed to start with Bad Guys attacking the town, burning the buildings, etc. Revenge is always a good motivator.

We did have one player who no matter what the game would generate an ordinary Joe, non-combatant, non-Adventurer character, play the reluctant adventurer role, drive the other players nuts with this, and occasionally complain that they weren't enjoying the game. It didn't matter how many times we pointed out how to construct a more adventure worthy character...  Bob the Fighter, Sandy the Cleric, Ralph the Wizard, and Gord, the ... janitor? set forth into the dungeon of dread...

Some days it seems the cat has got to the sandbox before you.

Setting up a shop to use as your home base while you go off adventuring is well within reason.  No problem at all.  Setting up a stronghold after years of adventuring?  Super cool - especially since you're probably not done adventuring anyway.  For myself, once I reach that level, I'm probably retiring the character and rolling a new one.  I'm not all that interested in the high level play.  Setting up a shop and spending the rest of your days sweeping up while the rest of the party (aka the players actually engaging in game play) goes off on adventures?  mmmmm...kinda dickish.  

If you are running a setting that emphasizes mundane life over adventure, so be it.  I won't be signing up for that game but more power to you...but by no means does the fact that that can be done mean that the game is "no more about dungeons than it is about shop keeping."

Quote from: estar;987322I don't see a problem then. Old character retires as it makes sense. You, the player, stick around in the campaign with a new character.

Makes sense to me as well. Though it depends on whether the NPCs are done with you, not only the other way around:).

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987335yeah, of course.  And as I've said, if the situation is "I've retired from adventuring, but I could be convinced to join back up maybe..." then cool.  Not a dick move.

Or if its "my character has decided he needs to retire now so I'm going to roll up a new one..." not a dick move.

However, If it's "yeah it makes sense for my character based upon his background to retire and go be a farmer now so therefore I'll be doing that for the remainder of the campaign..."  well...kinda dickish.

It's not dickish, even if the NPCs allow it to work as planned. It's just likely to get you bored, since the GM taking 15 seconds out of every hour to inform you about the people who passed through your shop isn't likely to derail a campaign;).
Or it could be a slice of life game. I've played those, but usually there are problems to solve, just a different kind of problems:D!

Quote from: DavetheLost;987362RuneQuest 3 had the shopkeeper problem in reverse. Your character was likely to be a shopkeeper (with a shopkeeper's skills and possessions) who heard the call to Adventure. Joining the militia was an option to get a character some prior experience, but if you wanted any combat skill at all it really wasn't so optional.

The last RQ3 game I ran the players looked at their characters at the end of character generation and said "Why do we want to become adventurers again?"

When your character is a baker staying home to mind the store seems the more sensible choice.  That is why so many of our RQ3 games seemed to start with Bad Guys attacking the town, burning the buildings, etc. Revenge is always a good motivator.

We did have one player who no matter what the game would generate an ordinary Joe, non-combatant, non-Adventurer character, play the reluctant adventurer role, drive the other players nuts with this, and occasionally complain that they weren't enjoying the game. It didn't matter how many times we pointed out how to construct a more adventure worthy character...  Bob the Fighter, Sandy the Cleric, Ralph the Wizard, and Gord, the ... janitor? set forth into the dungeon of dread...

Some days it seems the cat has got to the sandbox before you.

That's not a RuneQuest problem, that's a player problem. If people show up to play RuneQuest but aren't interested in being adventurers, why did they bother with an RPG at all?

Didn't we have something like this 6 months ago where someone talked about a player who decided his character would just keep digging a hole, and people took up sides on that?

I think ZZ's using the wrong term--it's only dickish to do this if they are deliberately throwing it in at the last minute to be disruptive, otherwise it's just out-of-party's-main-focus obsession. But that's pretty much a micro-point that's not worth arguing.

I don't think there's a real, practical, effects play disagreement here. In the situation of 4 of the 5 players making characters who are getting ready to go into a dungeon looking for treasure, and the fifth says, "my character would stay behind and become a shopkeeper"--I am pretty sure every one of us would say something along the lines of, "it's fine if {character they play} wants to be a non-adventurer right now, but the night's events are going to focus on the happenings of this dungeon, so if you want to feel involved, you should probably have some character going through it." Yes, you can play slice-of-life games with D&D/OSR. Yes, PCs-as-merchants or name-level domain play is pretty much "being a shopkeeper, but on a different scale."

Quote from: Dumarest;987393That's not a RuneQuest problem, that's a player problem. If people show up to play RuneQuest but aren't interested in being adventurers, why did they bother with an RPG at all?

There. that's what I had to say, only said better.

Quote from: DavetheLost;987362The last RQ3 game I ran the players looked at their characters at the end of character generation and said "Why do we want to become adventurers again?"

Interesting--I ran into exactly that conundrum right around the time I read RQ3. It didn't occur to me that it might have come from the game's influence. In retrospect if I were ever to play the campaign that I eventually conceived for those players, there would have been one PC with a definite end game (the motivation for adventure was an excellent maguffin that begged to have its backstory fleshed out by me and situated both geographically and politically/socially); two others who were a bit more in the ambitious mold; and the fourth basically along for the ride. None were generated randomly with the profession tables although I'm thinking now that the life events concepts from Mekton Z (also I think found in Mongoose Traveller and the old Central Casting supplements) could be tightened up and used to form frameworks for character motivation from the start.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;987317I don't think anyone is calling it a "dick move" anymore.  At first, it sounded like it might be because it was brought up in response to a discussion about players refusing to engage in the game in a way that the game is fundamentally designed for.  If a player signs up for a game of D&D, then refuses to actually go out and visit any dungeons...decides instead he's going to be a shopkeeper or something, that's kind of a dick move.  Personally, I don't really see the point of "retiring" if the character is still viable as a "vessel for adventuring" just for reason of character reality.  I mean if you are still intending to be a part of the game you're just going to roll up another character anyway.  However, I wouldn't really care about my character's background anyway...that's just me.  But I can understand the retirement angle the way its subsequently been explained and yeah, not really a dick move.

Right. Thats how the initial post kinda sounded. Later clarifications show it was not "I walk into the first session and quit" move like it initially sounded.

My point was that the retired character would get sucked back into adventure, in my examples all the characters are forced back into violence to one degree or another.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983651A pure sandbox is first and foremost about the DIY ethic. ...
A pure sandbox is a living world created by an old school referee, so the players start in the middle of an area usually a town that they know certain things about and the further away it is the less they know...
Edit: If you are reading this for the first time, please read it again before continuing. Since most of what I am getting is not based on what I wrote.

I read the whole thread. You dropped out halfway through. But, just in case, I'll throw in my two cents.

I am not one of the "old guards" from the "first days". I'm one of the '81 kids. I'm 45, been playing (mostly GMing) for over 35 years. Maybe I don't have the clout of yourself, or Old Geezer, or chimthainian (spelling?) but I feel like I've experienced a thing or two in that time.

Your first post, your complete philosophy on how RPGs work, your ENTIRE attitude of "purism" is complete nonsense.

Established facts? Is there some fucking RPG bible handed down from all the gods somewhere we aren't aware of?

Look gramps, nothing you speak of in your philosophy is a fact. Everything from how to design an RPG to how to play it are opinions. Period. Gygax, Arneson, Mentzer et al have waxed poetic on this very principle in the works you so lovingly created your psuedo-religion with. Later game designers state as much, with more and wider advice on "how to do it". Shit, some wildlings branched the idea into Story Games, board games with roleplaying, card games with roleplaying, live action roleplaying... these folks would read that post above with perplexed confusion wondering who forget to give you your meds.

What disheartens me the most is running into a self-proclaimed Grognard and seeing this scared tired same-old reactionary bullshit. What the fuck actually inspired you to stand tall and "heil Hittler" that post all over our screens?

Look, I would love to hear you regale stories of your early games. I would LOVE to hear your ideas about what "things" make up a good sandbox. How you go about filling in all those hexes and what cool things you conjured up in those halcyon days. But you think you get to make the rules? You get to set the pace? You get to define shit?

Fuck You poopy pants.

A sandbox is whatever the fuck I want it to be. If I want to have a meaningful conversation with my comrades in RPGs, I might want to build a consensus, or ask some clarifying questions so I can discuss the matter fruitfully, but SHIT WAFFLES I don't get to tell everyone what a sandbox fucking IS. Like it's a fucking FACT. Like I've been drinking for 12 weeks straight and can't remember where my DICK is.

You can shove your "pure sandbox" bullshit up your ass with the hand you "heiled" it with. We will fucking sandbox how the fuck we want to.

It's out bro. You can't have it back. None you motherfuckers can have it back. Sandbox is what Sandbox does motherfuckers!

Quote from: Dumarest;987393That's not a RuneQuest problem, that's a player problem. If people show up to play RuneQuest but aren't interested in being adventurers, why did they bother with an RPG at all?

One of the things about RuneQuest is that you can have adventures without being an adventurer.

You live on a farmstead and are a farmer. A pack of wolves comes sniffing around your sheep herd and you have to fight them off. Something kills one of your sheep every night for a week and you track it down and kill it. One of your friends goes missing and you go after him and rescue him. You overhear a traveller plotting to kill your clan chieftain and you thwart his plans. The clan chieftain's daughter looks awfully pretty nowadays but he thinks you are a nobody. You travel to Bull Mount and bring back a magical bull that always fathers twins and whose daughters give twice as much milk as normal cows.

You are a merchant and travel between towns. You buy and sell to make a profit. You hear a lot of news and sell it to the highest bidder. One of your friends gets into trouble and you take him to a faraway town. Bandits attack your caravan. You find a wagon that has been raided by bandits and help the survivors. One of the people has been taken by the bandits and you go to bring them back. A captive you have freed befriends you and joins you, but has a powerful family that offers you work.

Not every adventure needs adventurers.

Quote from: trechriron;987464I read the whole thread. You dropped out halfway through. But, just in case, I'll throw in my two cents.

Oh dear, here we go again!

Quote from: soltakss;988500One of the things about RuneQuest is that you can have adventures without being an adventurer.

You live on a farmstead and are a farmer. A pack of wolves comes sniffing around your sheep herd and you have to fight them off. Something kills one of your sheep every night for a week and you track it down and kill it. One of your friends goes missing and you go after him and rescue him. You overhear a traveller plotting to kill your clan chieftain and you thwart his plans. The clan chieftain's daughter looks awfully pretty nowadays but he thinks you are a nobody. You travel to Bull Mount and bring back a magical bull that always fathers twins and whose daughters give twice as much milk as normal cows.

You are a merchant and travel between towns. You buy and sell to make a profit. You hear a lot of news and sell it to the highest bidder. One of your friends gets into trouble and you take him to a faraway town. Bandits attack your caravan. You find a wagon that has been raided by bandits and help the survivors. One of the people has been taken by the bandits and you go to bring them back. A captive you have freed befriends you and joins you, but has a powerful family that offers you work.

Not every adventure needs adventurers.

By definition, if you have an adventure you have become an adventurer. A merchant/farmer who does what you described has become an adventurer. Had he not gone on the adventure, he would still be just a merchant/farmer.

Not to mention that the example provided was of the merchant/farmer PC deciding NOT to pursue the adventure you described...

That is not dead which eternal lie, and in strange eons...

Quote from: HorusArisen;988509That is not dead which eternal lie, and in strange eons...

That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.

Quote from: Dumarest;988515That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.

Love that quote especially when it's not being mangled by me :D

Quote from: HorusArisen;988529Love that quote especially when it's not being mangled by me :D

I cheated and looked it up first.

Quote from: soltakss;988500One of the things about RuneQuest is that you can have adventures without being an adventurer.

You live on a farmstead and are a farmer. ... Something kills one of your sheep every night for a week and you track it down and kill it. One of your friends goes missing and you go after him and rescue him.

... You find a wagon that has been raided by bandits and help the survivors. One of the people has been taken by the bandits and you go to bring them back. A captive you have freed befriends you and joins you, but has a powerful family that offers you work.

Quote from: Dumarest;988502By definition, if you have an adventure you have become an adventurer. A merchant/farmer who does what you described has become an adventurer. Had he not gone on the adventure, he would still be just a merchant/farmer.

Wow. The last time I played RQ I had a farmer initiate of Barntar that fought with a sickle in each hand. I remember he could bladesharp them, and call up a "wall of overgrowth" or something. What was written above was pretty much the first couple of adventures he went on. I haven't thought about him in decades, but he was fun to play. Thanks!

(But, I would have to disagree with you, soltakss. He didn't intend to be one, but he was totally an adventurer. Every Fire season)

There's a difference, though, between the various people in Soltakss's example. Some of them, the adventure comes to them, others go to the adventure. Farmers protecting their fields and herds can reasonably go a long time--even a lifetime--with no monsters or raiders. In any case the scenarios for this character will not be very proactive, by and large. A traveling merchant or caravan guard is more likely to happen upon an "adventure" or even to seek one out based on rumor and opportunity. A treasure-hunter or sell-sword is seeking adventure by definition and will probably find it.

Now, there are probably ways of getting consistent adventuring for the farmer which are more or less contrived, like monster of the week. Or maybe you could have a game of farm/clan management, a bit like King of Dragon Pass, where there's enough meat to tending the herds and planting the crops to keep it interesting while random events and rumors provide occasional push/pull for adventures. The structures for doing this, though, are hard to find. Maybe in Pendragon?

 But if you want straightforward adventure and it's somehow a conceptual block for the players to justify having their PCs participate, I think a better approach may be to present the adventure first, and then let the players create the party.

"WANTED. YOUNG, SKINNY, WIRY FELLOWS. NOT OVER 18. MUST BE EXPERT RIDERS. WILLING TO RISK DEATH DAILY. ORPHANS PREFERRED."

or

"In the frontier outpost of Nakum, several down on their luck drifters have been stuck due to lack of funds for a shipboard berth back to civilization. What little money they've been able to scrounge through manual labor is quickly used up for food, wine, and gambling. But now a rumor drifts in about an ancient ruin, 100 miles inland, with stories of hidden treasure. The manager of the trading post offers a loan for equipment, against a share of the booty. Who are these adventurers, who eagerly take up the challenge?"

I can see creating or, better yet, rolling up your characters in response to a want ad. I might have to steal that idea the next time I start a Traveller game!

Quote from: Dumarest;988565I can see creating or, better yet, rolling up your characters in response to a want ad. I might have to steal that idea the next time I start a Traveller game!

ARE YOU A COWARD? This is not for you. We badly need a brave man. He must be 23 to 25 years old, in perfect health, at least six feet tall, weigh about 190 pounds, fluent English with some French, proficient with all weapons, some knowledge of engineering and mathematics essential, willing to travel, no family or emotional ties, indomitably courageous and handsome of face and figure. Permanent employment, very high pay, glorious adventure, great danger. You must apply in person

_Glory Road_ Robert Heinlein

I've had quite a few players in my games choose to retire their PC. There's nothing wrong with that if it is what would make sense for the character.