Clash, what you define as Situational GMing is what I thought Sandbox GMing was... Where does the difference lie? Did I miss the Sandbox GMing style definition somewhere?

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;379610Clash, what you define as Situational GMing is what I thought Sandbox GMing was... Where does the difference lie? Did I miss the Sandbox GMing style definition somewhere?

With Sandbox style, one sets everything in place before the players start - for simple examples, stocking a dungeon, or setting up particular creatures in particular places. It requires a great deal of prep.

-clash

Cool! I'm a Situational GM it turns out! Thanks for clarifying.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?

Two or three is ideal for me.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?

What adventures?

I generate random encounters, I fashion the actions of the non-player characters, and I identify the big events going on across the setting. The adventurers create the adventures by their actions.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?

I like to be as surprised and challenged as the players - perhaps moreso - so I like to put the players in the driver's seat and leave as much to chance as possible.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?

Yes, I choose systems which emulate the genre of the game I want to run, so I've used a number of systems over the years

Quote from: flyingmice;379612With Sandbox style, one sets everything in place before the players start - for simple examples, stocking a dungeon, or setting up particular creatures in particular places. It requires a great deal of prep.

-clash

Yep.
While all GMing requires nimble response to players whim, brilliance, and idiocy, a Sandbox game has a lot of things set into place.  The Sandbox GM often just has to learn to grit his teeth and get to work when the PCs go in an unexpected direction, to an unprepped area.

I am a 5.
and I map stuff like this (from a detective game int eh end the PCs went in a whole other direction by checking the victim's phone records which I hadn't even considered although it did lead them to identify that the victim was the member of a covern and when another member died that the covern was the common denominator)
[ATTACH]236[/ATTACH]

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463

• Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?

I'd say I usuall hover between 2 to 5, depending on the sort of game I want to run.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463

• How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?

For one-shot adventures, I improvise a lot. The most prep I usually do is a graph paper map, and a couple of pages of notes. All too often I sit down with nothing but a copy of the rules, a few ideas, and we get things rolling.

For campaigns, I may evidently write a bit more, but it's mostly stuff the PCs can engage with; NPCs, organizations, vague cultural trivia. NPCs and organizations may have plans of their own, but these don't kick in until I deem appropriate.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463

• Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?

Gaming time, including GM prep time, is always at a premium for me. I have far more campaign and adventure ideas, than I have time to organize, jot down and run these ideas.

So, I tend to improvise as much as I can get away with. Sometimes it blows up on my face (for D&D3.0e this was... not a good idea). But I think I'm fairly good at it.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463

• Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?

Not so much the system, as the genre. Investigative games, I usually plan ahead a fair bit more, especially when PCs are mostly non-combat types. In contrast, for more action-oriented games I don't plan a lot, because they allow me a fair bit more room to improvise.

I'm going to quote Benoist as he says well what I've basically always done and love as a player and GM.  I don't know where I'd exactly fall on the scale as my players have liked a bit of "here's your mission" given to them, so maybe a 4 on your scale.

How I run things is not genre specific but like B, for CoC we all hop on the this is your investigation, highly focused band wagon but how you investigate is totally up to you and no "one way" is needed to solve any mysteries.

Quote from: Benoist;379479....

.... I do trigger events, and I do roleplay NPCs and factions "silently", out of the players' vicinity, keeping track of all this as the players interact with the sandbox, trigger actions and reactions, and so on. What I mean by this is that the sandbox operates as a dynamic environment, just like the real world would be, without the players' interaction. Stuff happens that the players don't know about, and sometimes, never get to know about, actually, though they might get in contact with some related consequence of these off game events at some point.

The world's alive in my head.
There's stuff going on even if the PCs don't see it.

Now, the game's about the PCs, nonetheless, and is generally squarely driven by the PCs actions and reactions which themselves trigger responses from the setting and its components. Over time, this gets both complex and genuine. There's no storyline, no pre-scripted outcomes of interactions of the PCs with the setting, only likelyhoods, "maybes" and "perhaps" which are often (to my own delight as a GM) proven wrong.

Exactly the same for me.  I delight in the PCs completely mucking up the best laid plans of the NPCs particularily by doing soemthing completely unexpected and audacious.

QuoteHow do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
That will depend on the game. For a game like D&D, you'll have an area of exploration, several dungeon sites and the like. Then a base situation, a starting point. Then the PCs are unleashed and interact with the sandbox however they choose.

Alright. Now my WoD games are like my D&D games. There is still an area of exploration, the City by Night. Now, replace hexes with locations in the city. Replace dungeons with factions. Rooms with NPCs. Strategy problematics with conspiracies, and tactical situations with political games of manipulation, deceit and maneuvering. That's what my WoD games feel like, with all the background behind for the PCs to investigate if they so choose, plans within plans, secrets etc etc. Still a sandbox in nature. Still no pre-scripted outcomes. Etc.

I do the above with all my games D&D like or otherwise.  There are factions in the dungeons often as well as above in the cities.

QuoteWhy do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
Because I want players to feel free and interact with the world with their characters in any way they choose, without any expectations on my part. I want to play role playing games, not story games, not reenactement games, not anything of the sort. I want players to be able to build the character they want, to interact with the environment the way they want, and to be able to deal with the consequences in any way they choose, with the setting being able to answer in appropriate and relevant ways.

Word up.

QuoteDoes the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
A game system is built under certain assumptions, in that it chooses to focus on this or that part of a role playing game, with this or that emphasis on particular aspects of the game world it is trying to simulate (Humanity in Vampire, levels and the way they work in each edition of D&D, etc). Now, you have two ways to go about your sandbox, from there: either you choose a given system, embrace its assumptions, and build the setting from there, or your build the setting first, and then select a game system that fits the setting's implied logic best, with all sorts of shades of grey in between. In that sense, setting influences system, and system influences setting. They're no way around it.

Yep.  I'm in the setting first camp.  I have my setting in mind for the genre.  I'll pick rules that work with that.  If the assumptions of the system make it too hard to run the game I like, then I won't use that system.  Regarding built in settings, they are like icing on the cake.  If I llike the icing (it works with my own setting ideas) great, yummy, if not I'll just scrape it off and throw it away.

Quote from: LordVreeg;379646Yep.
While all GMing requires nimble response to players whim, brilliance, and idiocy, a Sandbox game has a lot of things set into place.  The Sandbox GM often just has to learn to grit his teeth and get to work when the PCs go in an unexpected direction, to an unprepped area.

My players are both brilliant and unpredictably insane. If I was a Sandbox GM, I would have decorated the ceiling with shotgun pellets and gray matter by now.

-clash

* Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?
I'd say about a 6, maybe 7.

* How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
Generally, I have an idea of the overall plotlines of the campaign when I start. I then fill in outlines and timelines as the game progresses, since I find it difficult to do that too far in advance - player actions have an unpredictable effect.

* Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
It suits my current player groups the best. It has less to do with my preferences than with how they like to play.

* Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
Don't really know, since I only run D&D. I don't notice a difference in how I do things between different editions of D&D, if that helps.

• Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?
  

I think the criteria for the continuum is flawed born of the misunderstanding people have about sandbox campaigns vs railroads. A sandbox campaign doesn't mean that the GM is only reacts to what the players does. That type of campaign is pretty damn boring and enworld, rpg.net and other forums is littered with posts by GMs who tried running a sandbox this way and failed. Some succeeded because they have a highly skilled and/or motivated group.

What people forget that the world in which the sandbox will continue on without or without the PCs doing anything. It is the GM that must animate this and more importantly effectively communicate what going on to give the players some context.

Back in the day, much of this was done through random charts. You started moving around and shit started happening around you. Traveller and Judges Guild's Wilderlands are good example of this.

Instead I view the situation as more a fan then a single straight line. The various axes converging on the railroad campaign where the players are little more than passive observers of the story the GM is telling.

Realism is one thing that can make one sandbox campaign different than another. How much the referee is willing to simulate the world. Does he roll weather? Account for daily living costs and so on.

Plus the players can setup themselves in circumstances that are more rigid than other. For example in the Wilderlands the players could be freebooting adventurer types or members of the Overlord's guards. Both can be set in the same sandbox campaigns but the consquences of being a guard of the Overlord is very different than that of being a freebooter. Yet both can have the same freedom of choice to the player.

• How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
  

I list out the events that will occurs for the next game year or two at different scales (world, regional, local, etc). I will alter this in light of player actions.

I insist on the players having some background to place themselves in the context of the Majestic Wilderlands. I do this before the campaign starts in a one on one session with the players. We go back and forth tossing out ideas until the players settles on a background he likes. Sometimes we have a theme to the campaign where everybody is related through their background. Past themes included Mage's Guilds, Thieves Guild, a local neighborhood, and City Guards. Theme campaigns are a great way to flesh out some aspect of your setting while everybody still has fun.

This background serves as starting point for the player to starting adventuring in the Majestic Wilderlands. It is a crucial element in allow a new player to enjoy the detail and possibilities I created for my setting.

As for adventure, I start off with everybody background and use that as an initial starting point. This usually means in a group of 4 PCs about 6 to 8 likely possibilities that I prepare for. As the campaign progresses it is not hard for a experienced referee to predict where the players are going and prepare accordingly.

Also many sandbox players will tell you what they want to do giving you a focus. They realize that if they give you some warning the result is a more detailed adventure full of the stuff they like.

For the unexpected I rely on a bunch of random tables and what I called my bag of 'bits'. The bits being various elements I can throw together in a hurry to create a adventure by changing names, and circumstances. For example I pretty much know what a feudal manor house looks like, who lives there, and what variation exists. So I can make a unique one pretty quickly.

• Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
  

First players really like making changes to a campaign world and I never had a problem with it. I knew some DMs that would get bent if somebody tried to assassinate their version of the Emperor of Viridistan (which happened in my campaign) Second I am nuts for realism in a setting aka Harn but realize it isn't everybody cup of tea. So my style evolved with these two goals in mind. To make something playable and most importantly fun for me and my players.

• Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
  

More like I went on a quest to find the perfect system to fit what I was trying to do. The system that had the most influence on me was Harnmaster. Not so much the combat, magic and character stuff but all the campaign subsystems around the core RPG. For example Harnmanor.

I wound up with GURPS because it was a well designed game that was mallable enough to be implemented easily for the Majestic Wilderlands.

What I found was that it is better to start off with something realistic and add fantastic stuff to it then go reverse. However with 30 years of experiences now I can (and have) adapt pretty much anything to the Majestic Wilderlands and still make the campaign feel like my Wilderlands and the game still feel like whatever system it is.

For example the rules I added to S&W I picked because they felt OD&Dish and they worked with my Wilderlands. The same with the time I ran D&D 3.0 and D&D 4.0. There is no magic in doing this only experience, attention to detail and respect for the system you are adapting.

• Or, if you dislike my qualifiers, how would you describe your campaign style?
  

I would describe my campaign as a realistic sandbox campaign using fantasy/d&d/medieval genre with common (but not extreme) use of magic with an emphasis on characters making lasting changes to the setting and actions always have consequences (good or bad).

Quote from: flyingmice;379612With Sandbox style, one sets everything in place before the players start - for simple examples, stocking a dungeon, or setting up particular creatures in particular places. It requires a great deal of prep.

-clash

I agree, though in detail, that will depend on the Sandbox style. When you set up a bunch of NPCs and factions for instance, you don't necessarily need to go into too much depth at first, before the PCs' aims collide with these groups and people. If done right, you can actually have a fairly manageable amount of prep, and let the PCs trigger developments afterwards when they start asking questions, as particular reactions, emotions, motivations are triggered via game play, etc.

The good Sandbox in my mind is anywhere from sketchy to fairly detailed, but always leaves a fair amount within up to interpretation, so that the actual play matches the players' twists and turns via the actual GMing. Otherwise you'd just end up with a very elaborate railroad.

Quote from: flyingmice;379612With Sandbox style, one sets everything in place before the players start - for simple examples, stocking a dungeon, or setting up particular creatures in particular places. It requires a great deal of prep.

While there is a minimum amount of prep in order to give the players some context in which to make decisions it not necessary. Particularly for GM that are skilled in coming up with encounters, locales, and NPCs off the cuff.

The steps I put in my "How to make a fantasy sandbox" post is what I find that allow just about anybody to successfully run a sandbox campaign. My own personal setup and notes for the Majestic Wilderlands are much more bare bones then anything I did for the Wilderlands boxed set or Points of Lights.

My own view is that referring a RPG has multiple axes and that a successful GM relies on multiple techniques to create a fun game. The exact mix depends on the type of campaign and players.

Quote from: estar;379683While there is a minimum amount of prep in order to give the players some context in which to make decisions it not necessary. Particularly for GM that are skilled in coming up with encounters, locales, and NPCs off the cuff.

The steps I put in my "How to make a fantasy sandbox" post is what I find that allow just about anybody to successfully run a sandbox campaign. My own personal setup and notes for the Majestic Wilderlands are much more bare bones then anything I did for the Wilderlands boxed set or Points of Lights.
.

I've found I need little prep, unless I am running an investigation sandbox. Right now, I run both a counter terrorism campaign and a mafia campaign. The first one usually requires more preparation on my part, because I need more background information and I need more information about potential suspects/witnesses, etc. My mafia games pretty much run themselves. I set the stage with what is going on, who the important players, and what opportunities are out there. Once the session starts, as long as I am familiar with my NPC's motivations and goals, I can pretty much react to anything the players throw at me.

Quote from: BENOIST

Quote from: Originally Posted by flyingmiceWith Sandbox style, one sets everything in place before the players start - for simple examples, stocking a dungeon, or setting up particular creatures in particular places. It requires a great deal of prep.

-clash

I agree, though in detail, that will depend on the Sandbox style. When you set up a bunch of NPCs and factions for instance, you don't necessarily need to go into too much depth at first, before the PCs' aims collide with these groups and people. If done right, you can actually have a fairly manageable amount of prep, and let the PCs trigger developments afterwards when they start asking questions, as particular reactions, emotions, motivations are triggered via game play, etc.

The good Sandbox in my mind is anywhere from sketchy to fairly detailed, but always leaves a fair amount within up to interpretation, so that the actual play matches the players' twists and turns via the actual GMing. Otherwise you'd just end up with a very elaborate railroad.

I get pretty detailed.  Especially within the adventure, but I have factions and guilds and a few settlements that are very detailed...and it is still 100% sandbox.  The players are still free to chooose their interaction speed and amount, so I am thinking that the amount of detail has little to do with railroading, it it the amount of choices left to the players.  
In other words, the amount of detail has nothing to do with railroading; the stype of detail has everything to do with it.

I can do minimal prep, but if I write a one line note that the head of The Church of the Hosting will blame a plague of undead on 'x' church no matter what evidence, that one line has more railroading in it than a complete expose of the whole Church of the Hosting.