I feel like I should step in and argue heatedly with someone, but I'm not sure who. It's the eternal dilemma of the crotchety old bastard - so many people to disagree with, so little time!

On the one hand, pure sandbox play gives me hives. As a player, I don't want to be told that I can do whatever I want, because I don't want to do anything. Doing something when you don't have to is strange and unnatural. I want the GM to have the courtesy to give me something I'm forced to react to. And as a GM, I have to struggle to stay awake during sessions when the players just poke around and don't get much of anything accomplished. I do realise that players occasionally want a session like that, so I try to provide them in the interests of creating an enjoyable experience, but I keep having to struggle to not tell the players to wake me up when they want to do something that isn't completely irrelevant.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no use for modules. The key to have a meaningful progression of events without having it feel like a railroad is to make sure that the PCs have strong and compelling in-character motivations for going along with it. And you just can't do that with a scenario that's meant for a generic group of 4-6 characters of level 3-5.

QuoteOn the one hand, pure sandbox play gives me hives. As a player, I don't want to be told that I can do whatever I want, because I don't want to do anything. Doing something when you don't have to is strange and unnatural.

Suiting up, grabbing your weapons, and heading out to the unknown because you heard those bastards out there have treasure they're not sharing with you is one of the most primal motive forces of civilization.

That said, I do think that in a sandbox, it's necessary to give players a poke. Some people will show up at the table, immediately start asking around for rumors, and head off in search of adventure. Others will say, "Okay, now what?" and be confused if you don't at least tell them they overhear some fellows talking about a mysterious beast terrorizing a local shepherd.

Quote from: Baeraad;952798On the one hand, pure sandbox play gives me hives. As a player, I don't want to be told that I can do whatever I want, because I don't want to do anything. Doing something when you don't have to is strange and unnatural. I want the GM to have the courtesy to give me something I'm forced to react to. And as a GM, I have to struggle to stay awake during sessions when the players just poke around and don't get much of anything accomplished. I do realise that players occasionally want a session like that, so I try to provide them in the interests of creating an enjoyable experience, but I keep having to struggle to not tell the players to wake me up when they want to do something that isn't completely irrelevant.

Sounds like that's a case of too little structure instead of too much. I can see that. Can you give a hypothetical boundary? Say your being DMed, and example A is too little structure, but example B is enough (maybe even an example C that is too much)?

QuoteOn the other hand, I have absolutely no use for modules. The key to have a meaningful progression of events without having it feel like a railroad is to make sure that the PCs have strong and compelling in-character motivations for going along with it. And you just can't do that with a scenario that's meant for a generic group of 4-6 characters of level 3-5.

One thing that the OSR has produced for me is a number of modules which are basically dungeon maps, populated with monsters, and pre-rolled treasure or treasure tables. That I can use. I can build the story that gets the party there (or throw it down as the dungeon relevant to the situation). That saves me time and effort. If, in sandbox mode, the party has to rescue the baron's nephew from a cult that kidnapped and brainwashed by, I can throw down a generic 'ancient temple' dungeon, replace the orcs inside with 'cultists' (quite possibly still using the orc stats), and go. Other than that, modules are usually only good for mining for ideas.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;952780One of my favorite features of the early, 'classic' Traveller adventures is that each includes some thing - a starship, a base, a planet - which can be re-used, recycled, re-purposed, becoming part of the campaign.

In fact The Kinunir (Adventure 1) uses the same maps of the Kinunir class ships for 3 or 4 different adventures.

That's always been one of my favourite things about the early D&D adventures. Just simple effective maps that you can purloin for use again and again .

Quote from: Baeraad;952798As a player, I don't want to be told that I can do whatever I want, because I don't want to do anything. Doing something when you don't have to is strange and unnatural. I want the GM to have the courtesy to give me something I'm forced to react to.

You suck as a roleplayer and cannot satisfy a man or woman in bed.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? You're really incapable of roleplaying a character with ambition? A character who's self-directed? You can't imagine living in the game-world?

Quote from: Tod13;952840In fact The Kinunir (Adventure 1) uses the same maps of the Kinunir class ships for 3 or 4 different adventures.

Which ones?

Quote from: Baeraad;952798On the one hand, pure sandbox play gives me hives. As a player, I don't want to be told that I can do whatever I want, because I don't want to do anything. Doing something when you don't have to is strange and unnatural. I want the GM to have the courtesy to give me something I'm forced to react to.

In stories that's called an inciting incident and I agree its probably even more important for a sandbox because 90% of every sandbox setting I've ever read are stable and static and just like thermodynamics, objects at rest tend to stay that way. Without some type of dynamic stress on the system there's no motivation for taking much of any action.

Now this inciting event doesn't need to be particularly elaborate. It can be as simple as a local lord hiring you to clear out a dangerous region so it can be settled (perhaps with the promise of being made vassal-lords of the new territory as well). There's also nothing wrong with picking something personal to the PC's either. If a PC's family was slain by orcs then dropping a clue that an orc tribe is active in the area and their leader bears the markings of the one the PC saw run his mother through as a child then you've got a wonderful inciting incident perfect to get at least that PC willing to head out into the sandbox to find the murderer of their family.

A good sandbox setting will have one or more such inciting incidents built into their setting (villains amassing armies, social pressures and unrest, ill omens, etc.) and, at least in my experience, that's the thing that most sets the good ones apart from the mediocre and bad.

Quote from: Chris24601;952857A good sandbox setting will have one or more such inciting incidents built into their setting (villains amassing armies, social pressures and unrest, ill omens, etc.) and, at least in my experience, that's the thing that most sets the good ones apart from the mediocre and bad.

Part of managing a sandbox campaign is setting a interesting Initial Context for the characters. Choice is meaningless if it is the equivalent of throwing darts at a dartboard in the dark.

The most effective way of doing is to talk with the players both individually and as a group and weave to together a Initial Context from their responses. Usually the response are pretty basic and gives you a lot of latitude.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;952853You suck as a roleplayer and cannot satisfy a man or woman in bed.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? You're really incapable of roleplaying a character with ambition? A character who's self-directed? You can't imagine living in the game-world?

Being told to throw darts at a dartboard in the dark isn't appealing to a lot of people. Out of the dozens of gamers I know only a handful would plunge into a campaign with nothing but a blank map.

It prevalent enough that it no use bitching about it, it is what it is. Not a flaw but reflect how most people function. It not that they need their hands held, they just need something more than a brief description or a blank map in order to weigh their initial decisions.

Nor they need a novel either. My experience at MOST it will be a page of general stuff and a page of specifics for their character. Usually a paragraph for both is sufficient.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952211And as far as being a referee, practice makes perfect.  I personally am tired of the notion that a referee has to be some brilliant savant.  My first ever D&D dungeon level was shit, but my friends put up with it.  After 44 years of practice, I'm pretty good at it.

Granted, this forum is mostly blessedly free of the "But being a GM is HARD!" shit, but damn, it's a pervasive attitude.

I concur, I also believe that what can be done by a person can be a taught by a person. Doesn't change the need to practice but it doesn't help start that practice on a solid foundation.

Quote from: Omega;952526Apparently theres one or two really good ones. That DM I mentioned before who cant improv as a DM well likes them. To me they felt... ok. Id have to really read through one to get a better impression. But Im not fond of 3e at all.

Kingmaker

Quote from: Black Vulmea;952780One of my favorite features of the early, 'classic' Traveller adventures is that each includes some thing - a starship, a base, a planet - which can be re-used, recycled, re-purposed, becoming part of the campaign.

Which is why I took the time to write a supplement fleshing out the locales of the adventures for the back half of Scourge of the Demon Wolf. If you need a small crossroad hamlet, a medievalish village, a wandering beggar clan, or a homestead of mages. Scourge has you covered even after you run the adventure.

Quote from: Baeraad;952798On the other hand, I have absolutely no use for modules. The key to have a meaningful progression of events without having it feel like a railroad is to make sure that the PCs have strong and compelling in-character motivations for going along with it. And you just can't do that with a scenario that's meant for a generic group of 4-6 characters of level 3-5.

Why is it an impossible task to take a scenario that's meant for a generic group of 4-6 characters of level 3-5 and then tailor it to make sure that the PCs have strong and compelling in-character motivations for going along with it?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;952853You suck as a roleplayer and cannot satisfy a man or woman in bed.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? You're really incapable of roleplaying a character with ambition? A character who's self-directed? You can't imagine living in the game-world?

Yes it is for the vast majority of RPGers out there.
Then you get the delusional ones who actually think they are playing a unique character full of self-directed ambition, when in actuality all they are doing is playing by rote.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;952854Which ones?

What Tod13 means is that Adventure 1: The Kinunir has four adventures (or "Situations") inside of it. (And I know you know this.)

From the table of contents:

QuoteSITUATIONS.
The Scrap Heap
The Hunting Expedition
The Gash
The Lost Ship

Each of these situations uses the map of the Kinunir.

Significantly, early Traveller Adventures and Double Adventures were "Situation" based with details to inform and inspire the Referee's responses to PC actions and choices, and less about providing a linear series of events.