TheRPGSite

Assume for a moment that you could rank your style along a continuum (but I make no assumption that this scale is a good model).  Consider the numbers:

1 represents a pure sandbox, player-driven campaign.  No event takes place without some manipulation by your players.  Not even earthquakes.

10 represents a prefabricated story.  Your players' interaction with the plot really only speak to the party survival or accumulation of bonuses/easter eggs; tournament style.

5 might be sandbox campaign wherein prefabricated stories are "triggered"; or, a story-centric campaign driven by an outline that leaves the players room to change the course of events.

Consider these questions:

• Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?
• How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
• Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
• Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
• Or, if you dislike my qualifiers, how would you describe your campaign style?

As a player I'm probably around 5.  I don't want to be an extra in someone's else fantasy but at the same time I want a cinematic game with interesting set pieces, dramatic cuts between scenes. I love superheroes but it's hard to imagine a superhero game that is a pure sandbox.

As a GM it will vary.  It comes down to what works for that game and what the player's want. I find sandbox easier, but it players having the drive and interest to really push it.

Same things about maps, timelines or whatever. Actually the frustrating thing is that each campaign is different. It's like I can't really develop a style or methodology becasue each campaign just works differently and I have to learn how to run it all over again.

My last campaign was about a 6. I wrote outlines, fully expecting to either throw half of them out, or that my players would immediately go off the path, which they usually did. Mostly, the outlines were just for my own peace of mind, as I get nervous about raw improvisation and coming to the table with no ideas at all.

My campaigns tend to run this way because of the composition of the player group. The group is about one-third drama nerds who are really into the game world, one-third power gamers, and one-third casual gamers who don't care what we do game-wise. I find a carrot-and-stick model works best for keeping everyone motivated.

I did that for about six years, and got pretty bored with it. So the campaign I'm rolling out now will rank about a 2. The players are going to determine the course of the game far more than I will. If that means the game goes nowhere, so be it, but I don't think that will happen.

I wouldn't say that system has influenced me much. The last campaign used GURPS. This new one's going to use Starblazers / FATE.

I am not sure where I fit. I tend to be very sandbox, however, I spin storylines out of the players actions, so it isn't just a matter of the players running things. I also run on the assumption that there are forces out there, more powerful than the players that force them to act in some way. I do tend to stay away from pre-plotted storylines, but I have a number of power groups and NPCs with very clear goals and designs. I don't know, perhaps a 3 or a 4.

Interesting way to compose the base problematic. You get props for that, WB!

I'd rate myself about a 3 on your scale. This concerns both games like D&D or WoD, for instance, so it's not particularly game specific. 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.

That should provide a context to my answers. Now:

How 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 guess Call of Cthulhu would be more like a focused sandbox where you have an investigation taking place. You got a base situation, a murder, disappearance, weird event, whatever. Then you got a sandbox to interact with, find pieces of a puzzle, understand what the actual global situation/conspiracy is, and then solve it in any way you choose. Think, again, of it like a Dungeon, where you have your first room/access point, the base situation, and then the Underworld to interact with, in any way you so choose, up to the point where you understand the dungeon dynamics, its main factions and forces, and then choose how to deal with them appropriately. Maybe that's related to my introduction to the hobby via Temple of Elemental Evil, now that I think about it, because it's pretty much how T1-4 played for me in practice.

Why 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.

Does 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.

Tell me if I misunderstood your question, though.

5ish, maybe 6. I asked my players for my current campaign where they stood on sandbox vs. hook-driven play, and they asked for more of the latter. I am not about to give up on making them make choices, because that's what drives immersion and interesting campaigns for me as the GM, but they definitely want to feel like there's an arc.

On the other hand, there's never going to be a point where they have to go to place A and insert plot token B in order for the campaign to proceed.

I dunno, I almost feel like it's hard to plot this one in two dimensions.

All of this depends entirely upon who my Players are in the campaign. I strive to be as close to 1 as possible, but I've found that when Players are given total freedom of choice and go anywhere knowing that they will find chances for adventure along the way, then they tend to just stare at me with a deer-in-the-headlights expression because they have too many choices. It is frustrating.

So I try to nudge them along. A Character gets their pocket picked or they witness something significant or a NPC accuses one of them of murder or a town cryer yells about a monster rampaging in whereverthefuckistan. So it really comes closer to a 3-4 at best.

I try to allow the actions of the Players write the story, but that isn't always practical.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463Assume for a moment that you could rank your style along a continuum (but I make no assumption that this scale is a good model).  Consider the numbers:

1 represents a pure sandbox, player-driven campaign.  No event takes place without some manipulation by your players.  Not even earthquakes.

10 represents a prefabricated story.  Your players' interaction with the plot really only speak to the party survival or accumulation of bonuses/easter eggs; tournament style.

5 might be sandbox campaign wherein prefabricated stories are "triggered"; or, a story-centric campaign driven by an outline that leaves the players room to change the course of events.

Consider these questions:

• Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?
• How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
• Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
• Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
• Or, if you dislike my qualifiers, how would you describe your campaign style?

This post does run along my ideas of how I like to look at a campaign and game.
1)
Yeah, I don't like the continuum.  I believe that Sandbox means 'world in motion', so the players may affect stuff, but they may not, their choice.  So I run a total sandbox with stuff happenning all over the place, whether the PCs jump in or not.
If you are asking how much affect the players have in the world, most are local players in the local political scenes.  I would say that my 8-9 year group (Igbarians) have achieved local rockstar status and know a few real movers and shakers, but that is not them.  The Mistonians (15 years) are very powerful in their outlying town, but are not really known on a national stage, though they are on the brink of bigger things.  The onlien group is into about 37 sessions, but is still bit players.
So the PCs CAN have a big effect, and their story is not prewritten.  But the stories are in motion without them.  Celtricia is considered a Divset (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Theme_Wars) setting (Diverse theme), so their is more than one overarching storyline.

2) I write story arcs, generally at three levels, and those arcs are written tied to the Celtrician Tale of Years (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/Tale+of+Years).  Generally, I have the huge, overarching plotlines (worth years or even decades of real time play), the midlevel stuff that breaks that down into large chunks, and then the local story arcs.  Which still sometimes take longer than I expect.

3) I have always written my games in a literary ideal.  If it would make a bad read, it would make a bad game.

4) Vreeg's First Rule of Setting Design is, "Make sure the ruleset you choose for your game matches the type of game and campaign you want to play, because eventually, the game and setting WILL match the system."
The Corrollary is that no published system can exactly match up to a homebrew, so of course I have my own skill based, social heavy, slow-growth ruleset.  I think than anything else is actually a level of compromise.
But that's my own issue.

Like others have said... it depends on the group. If the players are very proactive types then they pretty much get the reigns of the wagon... but my head is usually full of potential if not actual stuff going on in the setting and if the players get 'writer's block' at some point I've got a box of ideas to toss at them that are connected to ongoing background issues.
Usually, I'd guess, it shakes out somewhere around the middle... oscillating back and forth. I'd MUCH rather have it linger in the low numbers... because being railroady isn't much fun and is a lot more work.

This really depends on the setting and chosen campaign style.

My old GURPS: TRaveller group was somewhere in the 2 to 6 range denpending on the session. The players were present possible cargo and trrade oppurtunities - they made the choices and at other times they 'drove' the story. Although they made some pretty lethal and annoying enemy NPCs at times - they got a pretty good "push back" on stuff they were planning pretty often.

The Banestorm campaign I did the players had choices - but they chose loyalty to the local Baroness and as a result loyalty to the reigning King in an upcoming civil war. That limited their actrion somewhat as it led to many obliogations and reciprocal situations. Its also the closest I've ever gotten tyo running a Fantasy/ "D&D"-type campaign.

The recent STAR TREK game I ran would be more in the 7 to 9 range - because the player characters were part of a military structure and had to take porders and take the missions they were assigned. Once cut off from communication with Starfleet Command they could be pretty autonomous - within reason and believability.


- Ed C.

Hmm, I'd say 5, maybe 6.  This is based largely on my love of dungeon crawls, but what characters do with them is entirely their affair.  I'll say "here's the dungeon, here's the reason why you could go in there and kick butt".  If they go "uh, no" and decide to move on, that's their affair.  I don't say "well a mysterious fog blocks you from leaving this small kingdom" or anything so puerile and stupid.

Admittedly, I do give compelling reasons to stay at it, but it's a pseudo-medieval world.  The admonition in G1 that characters must win the day or face the headsman's axe is just as contrived: we get up to G1, see that it's a tough nut to crack, and thus we move on somewhere else.  It isn't like the Duke is going to grab his blackberry and text the Great Kingdom and have the adventurers arrested and dragged back...

Great responses so far everyone, and a pleasure to read.  For your information, my "rating" probably swings from a 3-6.  While you'd think that number varies with the player group, I have a slightly different situation.  I usually play with the same group, plus or minus a few "peripheral" friends.  For me, the variance comes from intended duration of the campaign and/or how often we play.  I may elaborate later, but I'm feeling a bit tongue tied at the moment.  I don't have anything else to add to that for now.

Quote from: Benoist;379479Tell me if I misunderstood your question, though.

Not at all, you were on target.

Quote from: winkingbishop;379463Assume for a moment that you could rank your style along a continuum (but I make no assumption that this scale is a good model).  Consider the numbers:

1 represents a pure sandbox, player-driven campaign.  No event takes place without some manipulation by your players.  Not even earthquakes.

10 represents a prefabricated story.  Your players' interaction with the plot really only speak to the party survival or accumulation of bonuses/easter eggs; tournament style.

5 might be sandbox campaign wherein prefabricated stories are "triggered"; or, a story-centric campaign driven by an outline that leaves the players room to change the course of events.

Consider these questions:

• Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?
• How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
• Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
• Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
• Or, if you dislike my qualifiers, how would you describe your campaign style?

I was asked to run an L5R game and never had a chance to run the City of Lies boxed set, which is part sandbox  part storyline with plot hooks to pick from, etc. That would have been something like a 5.
The only problem with that is that two of the players owned the set as well, and one of them had run the campaign twice already.
I ended up just using the box set as a sandbox and see where the first few sessions would take us.

Where: These days, we really are playing a 1 or 2 on your continuum. Very much a player-focused sandbox game.

How: As far as preparing for adventures, it depends... I usually have a few events in mind based on cause & effect of what the players did as well as significant events pushed by the NPCs agendas.

Why: Because it works and because a modified sandbox game is appropriate for the group I have right now. I always tell them that I'm just running the world, they can run the stories. They come up to me with an idea and I say, "great, make it happen and I won't stop you, but the other players or characters might." This has really made up most of my running style for this campaign and it has been a resounding success. It's also how I run Amber games, depending on the group (sometimes introducing NPC driven conflicts, sometimes just letting the players run the show).

System influence: The system does not influence my style, at least not the L5R system.

I'm a fan of the concept of 'wagers' from Houses of the Blooded RPG, which essentially allows the players to introduce truths, facts, etc. I have house-ruled that if players make 'raises' (and L5R system concept) they may spend them, in certain situations and assuming my approval (which almost invariably will be 'yes'), as they would 'wagers in HotBlooded.

I have also rewarded players who bring food or host or make some sort of extra effort outside of the game with Temporary Void Points (TVPs) which are spent to set truths, facts and set events in motion to move towards what the players want in the game. The players sometimes inadvertently call them TPKs, which is rather amusing. Those TVPs can also be used as normal Void Points would (reduce Wounds, free Raise in a roll, etc).

Sandbox with Player-driven 'stories' is quite accurate. I don't call them stories until players tell them as such to our other gaming friends.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;379478I am not sure where I fit. I tend to be very sandbox, however, I spin storylines out of the players actions, so it isn't just a matter of the players running things. I also run on the assumption that there are forces out there, more powerful than the players that force them to act in some way. I do tend to stay away from pre-plotted storylines, but I have a number of power groups and NPCs with very clear goals and designs. I don't know, perhaps a 3 or a 4.

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

What Brendan said. However, to clarify, I am a Situational GM rather than a sandbox GM, but in your scale there is no place for Situational GMs, so on the basis of pre-plotted story quotient - none - I should be considered sandbox. Otherwise, Brendan speaks for me.

   
   * How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
 
My advenures arise mostly out of the interactions of NPCs and Players in the setting, though sometimes it is the setting versus the players.

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

I run campaigns this way because of several reasons - I hate railroading as a player, and you can't railroad this way. another reason is it's philosophically satisfying to me. Also, It's simple and almost prep free, and I have better things to do with my time.

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

Ummm, I run several systems, though mostly my own. Since I wrote it to facilitate the way I play, it's rather the other way around. :D

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

Like I said, I'm a Situational GM (http://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html), not a Sandbox GM.

-clash

What clash said.

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. :D

-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.

Quote from: LordVreeg;379686I 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.

Agreed. Sandbox and Situational styles have in common that they are not well suited for railroading. Also, like everything, there is a whole spectrum of GMing sub-styles in between - it's not an either-or proposition. Actually, a player in a well run Situational or Sandbox campaign would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Each should present a very similar 'face' to the player.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;379689Agreed. Sandbox and Situational styles have in common that they are not well suited for railroading. Also, like everything, there is a whole spectrum of GMing sub-styles in between - it's not an either-or proposition. Actually, a player in a well run Situational or Sandbox campaign would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Each should present a very similar 'face' to the player.

-clash

Agreed. It's all in the nuances, shades of grey, excluded middle, however you want to call it. :)

Quote from: VreegI 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.

Nailed it, Bro.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply some sort of correlation between the amount of detail prepped and the "railroadiness" of the resulting game. Railroading comes from the nature of the information provided, not its related depth.

Quote from: Benoist;379690Agreed. It's all in the nuances, shades of grey, excluded middle, however you want to call it. :)


Nailed it, Bro.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply some sort of correlation between the amount of detail prepped and the "railroadiness" of the resulting game. Railroading comes from the nature of the information provided, not its related depth.

Actually I had a moment of revelation on this forum a while back that changed my opinion on this a little.

Since I was about 12 I have always ad libbed 70-90% of the game. but I saw a post on here which was that ad-libbed games just tend to be a railroad as the GM will ad lib stuff no matter what you do the ad libbing process ends you in the same place.

Of course since I am incredibly lazy it didn't stop me ad-libbing but I think about it a lot more now and at a decision point I determine the outcome of all options in my head before the PCs decide what to do.

Quote from: jibbajibba;379696Since I was about 12 I have always ad libbed 70-90% of the game. but I saw a post on here which was that ad-libbed games just tend to be a railroad as the GM will ad lib stuff no matter what you do the ad libbing process ends you in the same place.

Huh? That's crazy moon logic, jibbajabba! I have no more idea than my players where it's going to go! One of the attractions of Situational GMing is you get to share the discovery with your players. I have no clue where anything is going! That sounds like another strain of Don't-trust-your-GM-itis. There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

-clash

Quote from: jibbajibba;379696Actually I had a moment of revelation on this forum a while back that changed my opinion on this a little.

Since I was about 12 I have always ad libbed 70-90% of the game. but I saw a post on here which was that ad-libbed games just tend to be a railroad as the GM will ad lib stuff no matter what you do the ad libbing process ends you in the same place.

Of course since I am incredibly lazy it didn't stop me ad-libbing but I think about it a lot more now and at a decision point I determine the outcome of all options in my head before the PCs decide what to do.

There are GM's who have already decided where the PCs are going.  I actually believe that having not enough predone often means that most GMs will be, consiously or subconsiously, predisposed to move the clients to whatever is most comforatable for them.

And there are some rare GMs who know this tendency and can counteract it.  But it is certainly something to be aware of.

Quote from: flyingmice;379702Huh? That's crazy moon logic, jibbajabba! I have no more idea than my players where it's going to go! One of the attractions of Situational GMing is you get to share the discovery with your players. I have no clue where anything is going! That sounds like another strain of Don't-trust-your-GM-itis. There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

Clash, see LV's post, above. Also, I'm not sure I entirely understand how it helps to formulate your role as opposing the PCs rather than the players. Obviously, opposing the players is a recipe for failure. But when the players have their PCs do something clever, sometimes the players' reward is to see it succeed without opposition.

A lot of problems can be avoided through GM skill and knowing your players, to be sure. But the sandbox approach is different. Take the example of the players who come up with an infiltration plan. The skillful situational GM might decide that the plan is foolproof, the players themselves obviously expect to succeed, and it would therefore be a railroad to force a fight. Consequently the GM jumps ahead to the fallout of the infiltration, trying to see what sorts of complications might occur beyond the horizon of the players' immediate expectations. But many GMs will fall into a standard pattern, e.g., assume that a "twist" is always fun, therefore there will always be something to cock up the infiltration and lead to some action right then and there.

With a sandbox approach, where things are detailed beforehand, or even in JJ's method where he thinks of various consequences before knowing which option the PCs' will choose, there's a much stronger guarantee that the GM won't subconsciously or consciously subvert the impact of player decisions.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379728A lot of problems can be avoided through GM skill and knowing your players, to be sure. But the sandbox approach is different. Take the example of the players who come up with an infiltration plan. The skillful situational GM might decide that the plan is foolproof, the players themselves obviously expect to succeed, and it would therefore be a railroad to force a fight. Consequently the GM jumps ahead to the fallout of the infiltration, trying to see what sorts of complications might occur beyond the horizon of the players' immediate expectations. But many GMs will fall into a standard pattern, e.g., assume that a "twist" is always fun, therefore there will always be something to cock up the infiltration and lead to some action right then and there.

I saw LV's post. I don't dispute that there are such GMs. It's called being a bad GM, no matter what style you are using.

A skillful Situational GM might decide the plan looked solid, and roll a die against an abstract quality of success number to see if there are any complications. This GM might also roll a die to see what shenanigans might occur if any do, and et cetera down the line. Randomness is your friend.

You are implying that because it is not mapped out in advance, that there is the possibility of the GM fudging something to conciously or unconciously get a result he wants. I submit there is the possibility of the sandbox GM ignoring what he has developed or moving it to where the PCs are. Neither will happen if the GM is rigorous about applying the principles behind the style. In other words, it's the old can't-trust-the-GM in new clothing.

If the GM is sandboxing, he would not move that encounter so the PCs will trip across it. If the GM is going situational, he will let the dice rule where patterns may develop. It's a matter of being rigorous when using that style. Either you trust the GM to adhere to that style or you don't. Many years ago, I used to run a sandbox campaign. I know how it works. I also know how Situational GMing works. There is no system that is proof against a GM ignoring the system, thus the many attempts to hedge in or eliminate the GM because there is no trust.

-clash

I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of '5'.  I honestly don't care for pure sandbox play, and I don't think it really exists anyway.  You can let the players wander the countryside, I suppose, but don't you need some dungeons or something scattered around for them to stumble across?  I suppose you can whip up a dozen dungeons or something ahead of time and insert them into random encounter tables for a nearly pure hexcrawl, but that would seem to reduce the DM even more to the role of CPU.  Barely more than a database frontend, displaying results for random table entry generation.

For myself, I find it somewhat difficult to keep at least a thread of a story from going through successive adventures, but I usually write loosely enough that the MacGuffin can show up more or less anywhere, and point to the next one in a general enough way that the players can pursue it at any time.  If they are 3/4 of the way through an adventure, and decide they are more interested in getting some treasure, I guess the end boss didn't really have the MacGuffin; it was just an unfounded rumour after all.

Of course, I am also lazy enough to let whatever crazy, half-concocted conspiracy theories they make up from the paucity of information be true when it suits my purposes, too.  :)

Quote from: flyingmice;379702There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

-clash

:hmm:
I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, and excuse me if I just completely misunderstand, but I come from a squarely Gygaxian tradition in this, in that I consider myself to be an opponent, as well as an ally at times, of the players, in a wargame sense of the term. Quoting a relevant blog: (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2009/03/up-on-tree-stump-2.html)

Quote from: Robert J. KuntzFacet One, Disarming the Opponent: One must remember that EGG's grounding was in table-top and miniature wargames. Imagine a gathering of us nere-do-wells in his basement, squared off against each other on separate sides of a 6 x 10 sand table. Now imagine the interchanges as we, the generals of one side of the table, quipped with the other side's commanders. Provocation? Most definitely! It may well have been the same thing that the Scots and Edwardian Englishmen could have traded squared off as they were, awaiting the outcome of an upcoming battle. A summoning of courage? Most certainly! The superior force responds on all levels of emotional output, and this was no different in our games, whether staged or instinctual, or where-ever such "harmless" chiding bore from. As the battle wore on, as the field changed hands, and as the final victory was in view, the other side crushed and in rout, well, you can imagine that we didn't just sit there wringing our hands and noting it in a perfunctory manner. And although some were calmer in their expressions, EGG was most expressive in victory (especially if it had been a very hard-fought battle hinging on last minute shifts and on the fly changes), so it is not to say that he didn't sound like a Confederate soldier on occasion, perhaps imagining himself pursuing the blue-bellies amidst howls and hoots after the Union's rout at the First Battle of Bull Run!

Now transfer this particular part of his mindset into the D&D game with him as DM. His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand...

The whole thing is worth a read.

When I asked Rob to clarify his thought on this, and how that would relate to people accusing EGG of abusive DMing, here's what he answered:

Quote from: Robert J. KuntzThe actual thought that someone might summarize my commentary as suggesting that either EGG or myself were abusive DMing actually made me laugh real hard, thanks!

This is where the true division lies between what people perceive through rules and by implementing them on different levels and at different times.

The condensed version is stated:

"His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand..."

This is to make it utterly clear that this is how we (players and DMs) perceived this. The fairness of DMs is never a question, for in doing so you must honor the neutrality of the station maintained. That's part of the game, just as any other games has rules sets; and we are definitely dealing with many Masters here of not only games design, history, game theory and so forth, but mature adults (wel,, I as on my way with all the guys coaxing/coaching, and at a frenetic pace and speed). We are here talking about some of the best game designers of the time--Gygax, Mike Carr, Arneson, Don Lowry, Mike Reese, Leon Tucker, Jeff Perren, and the list goes on.

So, No, there was no abuse, but the idea that we were still opponents, well, that is consistent in all games, and was no different then. I really do not see where the other line of thought ever entered into the picture, really, as a DM, though not adversarial, still role-plays adversarial NPCs/Monsters (and if good, to their fullest), and that through the conduit of his or her mind, as he or she, fortunately, can't afford a brain transplant, let's say, to that of an ORC, at mid-point of the adventure... Gary being a mighty fine opponent only transferred his toughness into those encounters and they were played smartly and without reserve, just as he had done on the tabletop or sand table :)

You can be an opponent to the players without being unfair, or adversarial (which seems to be what you guys are talking about, what I'd call "bad DMing", plain and simple).

So, how do you think that relates to what you were just saying, here? Still trying to wrap my mind around it. Thanks.

Well, Clash, I haven't read the side thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17224) that's sprung up, but the problem here is that "Situational GMing" isn't well-defined, at least in my mind. If this is more appropriately addressed in the follow-on thread, let me know and I'll take it there, but for now allow me to respond here.

I'm agnostic on whether the GM who always introduces a "twist", or otherwise deliberately complicates matters, or steers them into a certain type of situation, is a "bad GM". I generally dislike that style. But I've seen it advocated in various forms (e.g., "the rule of cool") so instead of just shunting it off into "bad GMing" I'd rather identify it as matching some taste. For a concrete example, see this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=264145#post264145) and the follow on. The poster in question describes how his GM generated an off-the-cuff encounter based on pure judgment. If we can avoid being side-tracked by semantic nit-picking over the meaning of "random encounter", what lies behind the example is that some people think it's cool to improvise encounters in that way--no dice to determine if the encounter occurs, or what the encounter consists of.

QuoteA skillful Situational GM might decide the plan looked solid, and roll a die against an abstract quality of success number to see if there are any complications. This GM might also roll a die to see what shenanigans might occur if any do, and et cetera down the line. Randomness is your friend.

On this I agree completely. However I wasn't aware that Situational GM by definition prefers dice over pure judgment, in situations where there might be some doubt about the outcome. A sandbox GM who ignores what he's developed or moves it (from a previously-noted location) to where the PCs are is necessarily deviating from sandbox principles. He or she is consciously fudging. I don't know what a Situational GM's procedures are in cases where there's no prep and some reasonable doubt about "what happens next".

QuoteIf the GM is sandboxing, he would not move that encounter so the PCs will trip across it. If the GM is going situational, he will let the dice rule where patterns may develop. It's a matter of being rigorous when using that style. Either you trust the GM to adhere to that style or you don't. Many years ago, I used to run a sandbox campaign. I know how it works. I also know how Situational GMing works. There is no system that is proof against a GM ignoring the system, thus the many attempts to hedge in or eliminate the GM because there is no trust.

The part in bold is the part I wasn't aware of.

Besides, isn't this all about JJ's post?

He's saying that "just deciding" after hearing the PCs' course of action can lead to a tendency to channelize the course of play.

You are saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of rolling dice.

I am saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of having some idea of what the prior situation is.

You're not disagreeing with JJ. And as far as using "prior situation" vs. "stochastic determination", they're twins in a way. Certainly the absolute of pure sandbox isn't practically possible, meaning that some amount of off-the-cuff determination is always needed. At that point it's a question of how the decision is made.

Quote from: flyingmice;379702Huh? That's crazy moon logic, jibbajabba! I have no more idea than my players where it's going to go! One of the attractions of Situational GMing is you get to share the discovery with your players. I have no clue where anything is going! That sounds like another strain of Don't-trust-your-GM-itis. There is a dark strain of GM who think their job is to oppose the players rather than opposing the player characters, and there are players who have been burnt by them, and think all GMs are at least potential facists.

-clash

I thought the exactly the same, I wouldn't even have thought there was a plan if I hadn't read that post that suggested it.
It's just you kind of realise that maybe you tend to move in a direction sub-consciously. Now I never used a dice based option I considered it based on probability and 'story' which does make me more suspectible to railroading perhaps.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379791Besides, isn't this all about JJ's post?

He's saying that "just deciding" after hearing the PCs' course of action can lead to a tendency to channelize the course of play.

You are saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of rolling dice.

I am saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of having some idea of what the prior situation is.

You're not disagreeing with JJ. And as far as using "prior situation" vs. "stochastic determination", they're twins in a way. Certainly the absolute of pure sandbox isn't practically possible, meaning that some amount of off-the-cuff determination is always needed. At that point it's a question of how the decision is made.

I am not sure I would regard this as railroading though. Since you aren't really encouraging the players to go in any particular direction. Railroading to me, is when I know I have to go a particular direction because the gm wants me to. The other big difference with situational stuff is the GM has to adapt to player actions. So While you may have a crime boss who wants to take over the north side of town, how the players' deal with that is totally up to them. They could ignore it completely, they could ally with the crime boss, they could gather up a coalition of street gangs and take the north side for themselves. If the players have so much freedom, how can that be railroading?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379791Besides, isn't this all about JJ's post?

Well, I wasn't sure if what I was quoting really was relevant to this line of discussion. I was wondering what was meant by the expression of "opposing the players instead of the PCs". I don't see the difference between the two right away, unless it means being an opponent, adversary in the game, as opposed to just being adversarial/a douche out of the game, in which case, I agree totally.

Hence my question/tangent.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379791He's saying that "just deciding" after hearing the PCs' course of action can lead to a tendency to channelize the course of play.

You are saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of rolling dice.

I am saying that "just deciding" should be avoided in favor of having some idea of what the prior situation is.

You're not disagreeing with JJ. And as far as using "prior situation" vs. "stochastic determination", they're twins in a way. Certainly the absolute of pure sandbox isn't practically possible, meaning that some amount of off-the-cuff determination is always needed. At that point it's a question of how the decision is made.

I'm not advocating total randomness. I agree with JJ, actually, in that channeling the game play can in effect evolve into a railroad -it's a very real threat to the game's integrity. I think I agree with you too in the sense that decisions must be made with the setting in mind. The prep that goes into the sandbox is destined to inform the DM's judgment calls as to the way NPCs, factions, particular situations will react to the PCs' input. Otherwise, with complete randomness, you'd just have a bunch of hexes and tables of wandering monsters. I mean, nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to have a setting with more consistency right off the bat, without hurting the opportunities of choices for the PCs in the process.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;379795I am not sure I would regard this as railroading though. Since you aren't really encouraging the players to go in any particular direction. Railroading to me, is when I know I have to go a particular direction because the gm wants me to. The other big difference with situational stuff is the GM has to adapt to player actions. So While you may have a crime boss who wants to take over the north side of town, how the players' deal with that is totally up to them. They could ignore it completely, they could ally with the crime boss, they could gather up a coalition of street gangs and take the north side for themselves. If the players have so much freedom, how can that be railroading?

See I would say that Railroading is where the players' decisions make no difference. They go left or right and they still end up in a hall full of Giant lizard statues which come to life if you attempt to prize any of the gems out of the walls. Or the Crime boss will round up the PCs and bring them for a chat at his Italian restaurant.

Now I don't do sandbox games for 2 reasons
i - I am lazy. A real sandbox is so mauch work. a city with 10,000 people? My mum used to DM like that, an index card for each building with a map, NPCs etc etc. Try that for New York in 1929....
ii - Story, I don't mean a preset tale but I do mean some sort of story 4 hours of exploring places with no action or 'content' doesn't work. There has to be something. Now the railroady thing I have been guilty of is putting story related content in the players way. So now I really think about thing and try to drive everything from NPC motives.

If I get to a point where it looks like something I planned out in my head when I was thinking about the adventure, say a shoot out in an Itialian restaurant, is likely to happen then I stop and think hold on are you railroading this or is this a result of their actions.
Relying on PCs that "want to adventure" as Clash suggests can also be a bit of a risk because maybe you favour paths that lead you to familiar places.

Quote from: jibbajibba;379808See I would say that Railroading is where the players' decisions make no difference. They go left or right and they still end up in a hall full of Giant lizard statues which come to life if you attempt to prize any of the gems out of the walls. Or the Crime boss will round up the PCs and bring them for a chat at his Italian restaurant.

That is why I like to GM this way. I like to make character choices matter. Sometimes the boss might want to round up the players and chat with them at the Italian restaurant. But whether they do, and how things go down, is entirely up to them. NPCs do have objectives and will try to achieve them, but that doesn't mean you are railroading the players anywhere.

That said, there are some basic realities that need to be reflected. In my campaign the players are associates trying to become made men in the mafia. There is a hierarchy in place. So the boss needs to give them occassional assignments, since that is the way it works. Sometimes they will be specific ("I need you guys to take out Joey Zito"), sometimes they will be vage ("I want you guys to figure out ways to improve the family's cash flow"). But I never have series of events planned in either case, and the players have their own goals that they are trying to follow (in some cases that includes becoming boss themselves one day). What I do, is present the problem, and see how they react. Once they've set things in motion, I try to figure out how their actions impact the goals and designs of the NPCs and groups in play.

Right, just to echo Jibbajibba's post, I tend to forget that a lot of people make a distinction between hard-railroading and more soft-touch-illusionism. That is, between the GM obviously forcing the players to do something, and the GM moving things around secretly to get the PCs to the next planned scene, while trying to make them think their decisions and actions are what's driving the course of events.

For my purposes they're pretty much the same, and both are the opposite of a sandbox.

QuoteWhile you may have a crime boss who wants to take over the north side of town, how the players' deal with that is totally up to them. They could ignore it completely, they could ally with the crime boss, they could gather up a coalition of street gangs and take the north side for themselves. If the players have so much freedom, how can that be railroading?

In this example, the players may have total freedom, but there are many ways the GM can arbitrarily undermine their actions.

The GM can make the options functionally identical. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then they get to play out a series of balanced combats vs. the police and other gangs. Ah, but if the players choose to oppose the crime boss, they get to play out a series of balanced combats against the boss's gang.

Or the GM can make the options strategically equivalent, a sort of superset of the above. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then there's no more or less risk than if they oppose him. In short, the PCs can do no wrong. Ignoring the crime boss has no real consequences, either.

Quote from: Benoist;379768So, how do you think that relates to what you were just saying, here? Still trying to wrap my mind around it. Thanks.

It doesn't relate in any way at all. I was a wargamer myself, *long* before i was a roleplayer. By saying opposing the players vs opposing the player characters, I was referring to the GM trying to stop the players' ultimate goal, which is to have fun, vs trying to stop the player characters' various goals, which is totally cool.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;379817It doesn't relate in any way at all. I was a wargamer myself, *long* before i was a roleplayer. By saying opposing the players vs opposing the player characters, I was referring to the GM trying to stop the players' ultimate goal, which is to have fun, vs trying to stop the player characters' various goals, which is totally cool.

-clash

Alright. :)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379816The GM can make the options functionally identical. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then they get to play out a series of balanced combats vs. the police and other gangs. Ah, but if the players choose to oppose the crime boss, they get to play out a series of balanced combats against the boss's gang.

Or the GM can make the options strategically equivalent, a sort of superset of the above. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then there's no more or less risk than if they oppose him. In short, the PCs can do no wrong. Ignoring the crime boss has no real consequences, either.

Sure, GMs can always railroad when they chose to. But the point is, if your aim is to go more free form, knowing the motivations of the NPCs, will help you avoid eying some scene you want the players to hit. And consequences is a big part of the mix. Ignoring the crime boss in this scenario should result in the crime boss doing what he can to thwart or destroy the PCs. Like life, every choice has its pros and its cons. The crime boss is probably the safer, more predictable path. But if the players take initiative and set out on their own, they can be in a position to rule the criminal underworld or at least shape it. The choices matter because they lead to different places.

Yes, exactly. It's just that the phrase "adapting to player actions" can cover both railroady and sandbox-y/situational GMing.

What's important is the principles that guide how you adapt.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379789Well, Clash, I haven't read the side thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17224) that's sprung up, but the problem here is that "Situational GMing" isn't well-defined, at least in my mind.

It isn't well defined in anyone's mind. It all came about because of a discussion I had with Marco Chacon almost a decade ago, where he and I realized we  were using the same style of GMing, or at least moderately congruent, and realized there were probably more of us out there. One or the other of us came up with the situational moniker - I think it was me, but it equally could have been Marco - and anything that's been written on the subject is probably by one or the other of us.

It's not a movement, or a defined technique. There is no manifesto, and I doubt there ever will be. It's just a hodgepodge collection of techniques and an underlying philosophy. When I refer to anything resembling a 'standard' process, it's just something I know both of us do. I know a lot of people use these techniques - some have developed them on their own, and some have had them handed down from others, but when I talk about it, a lot of people say "Hey! I do that!" and more and more people call themselves Situational GMs on first meeting, so they heard the name someplace.

So yeah, there's a lot of confusion about it, and no central source to consult. It surely isn't me - I don't do that crap. I answer questions, but I'm not the bible. Eventually someone is bound to do it.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;379825It isn't well defined in anyone's mind. It all came about because of a discussion I had with Marco Chacon almost a decade ago, where he and I realized we  were using the same style of GMing, or at least moderately congruent, and realized there were probably more of us out there. One or the other of us came up with the situational moniker - I think it was me, but it equally could have been Marco - and anything that's been written on the subject is probably by one or the other of us.

It's not a movement, or a defined technique. There is no manifesto, and I doubt there ever will be. It's just a hodgepodge collection of techniques and an underlying philosophy. When I refer to anything resembling a 'standard' process, it's just something I know both of us do. I know a lot of people use these techniques - some have developed them on their own, and some have had them handed down from others, but when I talk about it, a lot of people say "Hey! I do that!" and more and more people call themselves Situational GMs on first meeting, so they heard the name someplace.

So yeah, there's a lot of confusion about it, and no central source to consult. It surely isn't me - I don't do that crap. I answer questions, but I'm not the bible. Eventually someone is bound to do it.

-clash

I've always kind of lumped it together with sandbox (and just thought of sandbox having its own continuum with more free form on one end and less on the other), but I can see the distinction you make in this thread.
I'd say back in the early 90s is when I first experienced this kind of play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;379812That is why I like to GM this way. I like to make character choices matter. Sometimes the boss might want to round up the players and chat with them at the Italian restaurant. But whether they do, and how things go down, is entirely up to them. NPCs do have objectives and will try to achieve them, but that doesn't mean you are railroading the players anywhere.

That said, there are some basic realities that need to be reflected. In my campaign the players are associates trying to become made men in the mafia. There is a hierarchy in place. So the boss needs to give them occassional assignments, since that is the way it works. Sometimes they will be specific ("I need you guys to take out Joey Zito"), sometimes they will be vage ("I want you guys to figure out ways to improve the family's cash flow"). But I never have series of events planned in either case, and the players have their own goals that they are trying to follow (in some cases that includes becoming boss themselves one day). What I do, is present the problem, and see how they react. Once they've set things in motion, I try to figure out how their actions impact the goals and designs of the NPCs and groups in play.

This.

-clash

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

How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
I use a Matrix approach. It has outlines, timelines, and NPC motives/assets.

Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
Flexibility for me and a spotlight on player's choices.

Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
Not really. I've used my Matrix approach for everything from Coyote Trail to Top Secret SI. It makes D&D sing though.

Quote from: PaladinCA;379831I use a Matrix approach. It has outlines, timelines, and NPC motives/assets.

Interesting that you should mention this now.  What is being described as Situational GMing reminded of the Power Matrix model described in the Complete Book of Villains, so I dusted that off and read it earlier today. :)