Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:12:25 AMI never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

You didn't. It was the impression you made. It was implied, as from these statements:

QuoteGiven the immaturity displayed by your description of your players, I could as easily claim the same of you and your group.

QuoteI'm sorry you're too inexperienced to have grown out of this behavior.

QuoteIt's done because you choose to do it.  Choose differently.

and then there is this, which is blatantly hypocritical of you:

QuoteYes, obviously. I don't think I ever claimed that other people should play the way I do.

Because taken in the context of the conversation, you clearly imply your way is better, and therefore..

Quotethat other people should play the way I do.

so you can promptly fuck off.

Let's plan a road trip to the Grand Canyon and see what happens along the way. Is it railroading if the driver reminds the group about the goal if they decide to spend time at various places or have car trouble and get sidetracked for a while? The goal is to reach the Grand Canyon but if, how and when that happens is ultimately decided by the car's occupants. A balance is key for a fun and entertaining trip and arguing semantics about what railroading and sandbox means seems to be only relevant to the most extreme players. A bit of nudging isn't railroading and some players will waste everyone's time if allowed to wander aimlessly

We play on Saturday, I email a rumor table every Wed. This gives the group time to decide what they want to do, and let me know so I can prep a bit more.

I write the rumor table out as a series of informants and gossip and lore to make it fun to read, and to introduce a number of NPC that may come into play some day:

• "Betty the barmaid at the Vulgar Unicorn is dating one of the rebels and he says...."
• "Sir Turdbucket says a member of the Thieves Guild came buy and said the Lord of the town has been meeting with members of the Cult of Fanatical Bat Lovers..."

So far its worked nicely and the players have been appreciative.

Also I attach their actions to rumors:
1. The players went through Lost Mines of Phendelver/Dragon of Icespire Peak and at some point looted the Dragon Barrow and Killed a white dragon. So I had gossip around town that the Dragon Barrow was looted and the Dragonsword stolen. Lord Neverember and the Rebels are looking for the sword as an ancient heirloom to solidify their claims of control as the sword was once possessed by leaders of the city. So the players +1 sword has value in faction play now.
2. After Lost Mines/Dragon of Icespire we segwayed into Storm King's Thunder and fought Giants a bit so I added the Hill Giants started rampaging after the white dragon Cryobane was killed (the party killed the dragon, and have some responsibility). Apparently dragons and giants hate each other so I worked with that.
3. They went into White Plume Mountain while I was trying to figure out where to go with the campaign and ended up with three over-powered Magic Items. I decided that instead of just being powerful items they'd be adventure magnets once they returned to Neverwinter to rest up and recover.
* Wave the trident was wanted by a cult of fishermen, sailers, and pirates who ambushed the party to reclaim their relic. With the cult destroyed now a bunch of fishermen and sailors have started following the possessor of Wave like he is a prophet (Life of Brian style) and may end up being an asset the party can use.
* Whelm was a Dwarven Hammer and the Dwarves in town put a bounty on it, and when that didn't work put a freeze on all assets and trade with anyone that dealt with the Hammer's owner. That convinced the owner of Whelm to trade it back to the Dwarves for a lessor magic item and now the Dwarves are very friendly and may end up being an asset the party can use.
* Blackrazor, well the player who got that started off his character as a "lord" so I decided he recovered his Uncle's sword (Uncle is a noble in Waterdeep) and the Uncle wanted it back and eventually sent a small army to Neverwinter to get it.

Anyway the party has leveled up enough to continue against the Giants, but they are so deep into Neverwinter politics I'm not sure they want to. When sandbox play works it can be very fun.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:12:25 AMI never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

No. You've been belittling and putting down any other style of play than your own.

In other words you fit right in here perfectly.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 01:56:23 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMIt eliminates the DM to Player dichotomy. By allowing players input into how the game setting is created, it weakens DM fiat.

Explain how it does this. My "fiat" hasn't been weakened in my current game at all.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMAn RPG is a role paying GAME. Not storytelling. You want to tell a story, go write a book.

I have not said anything to the contrary. "Players contribute to the game's setting" and "Players play in the game" do not contradict each other.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMWithout a clear distinction between DM and player, rules arbitration becomes murky and the DM can't perform one of his primary functions: referee.

The distinction remains clear after the players contribute elements to the setting.
Rules arbitration is exactly the same whether the players put things in the world or not. The resolution mechanics are unchanged. I'm not prevented from adjudicating in any way.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMNot only is it his role to create a game world, but it's just as important for him to act as rules interpreter and arbiter of said rules.
There is no rules by committee, nor game world by committee.

The roles of participants in the game are decided by those participants. I want the players to contribute, so they do.
I'm still the arbiter of the rules after the players contribute ideas to the setting. The players have nothing to do with adjudication.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMPlayers getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible.

It's been pretty great, actually.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

The ideal world is the one I create together with my friends. They should get a say in the nature of the game they agree to play in their free time.

I don't want power over the world. I want to run a fun game that my friends enjoy playing. I am currently achieving that goal, so I don't see any reason to use your approach.

Learn to let go. You don't have to be in control. If you don't trust your players to contribute to your game, you shouldn't be playing with them.

If you are a traditional failed-author railroading DM, you are trying to be in control of the setting.
If your game has all the players and the DM introducing their failed-author ideas into the game, then you are all rivals in being in control of the setting.

The only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

As a GM, I see myself as a toy maker more than anything.  Whether it's a complication, an NPC, or a piece of loot, I'm always looking forward to seeing how the party interacts with it. 

Quote from: BadApple on March 19, 2025, 04:32:36 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

As a GM, I see myself as a toy maker more than anything.  Whether it's a complication, an NPC, or a piece of loot, I'm always looking forward to seeing how the party interacts with it. 

"DM as toymaker" is a new one for me.

I like this much better than "worldbuilder", which gets me thinking about why. "Worldbuilder" has always felt authorial/railroad in tone to me. I suppose I feel like the "world" is "built" by events, and the events I'm interested in are the ones where the PCs are interacting with the toys.

Neat way to look at it.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

Pretty much the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

I've been gaming with my particular group, in person, for many years. I kinda would like to think I know what they want from a gaming session.

And the main thing they seem to want from their GM is structure. They tend to flounder a lot if they are not presented with clear goals, and a totally sandbox playstyle tends to bring on choice paralysis on them.

While sometimes it's nice to have a session or two of pure rp with little to no defined goals, when it comes down to brass tacks, they prefer a mission-based campaign with defined goals to meet.

Sometimes they create a goal for themselves, but most of the time they seem to enjoy more adventures being presented to their characters from other individuals within a campaign setting (NPC "quest givers" if you will). In between these adventures, they like playing out living the high life for as long as the money they have earned carries them.

So far, their preferred games that we have played the longest are Shadowrun and Dark Heresy. Both very mission-based settings, with a very strong structure that many other gamers might call "railroading" style games, yet they have consistently chosen those games above others to play.

Quote from: Dropbear on March 19, 2025, 10:07:26 AMI've been gaming with my particular group, in person, for many years. I kinda would like to think I know what they want from a gaming session.

And the main thing they seem to want from their GM is structure. They tend to flounder a lot if they are not presented with clear goals, and a totally sandbox playstyle tends to bring on choice paralysis on them.

While sometimes it's nice to have a session or two of pure rp with little to no defined goals, when it comes down to brass tacks, they prefer a mission-based campaign with defined goals to meet.

Sometimes they create a goal for themselves, but most of the time they seem to enjoy more adventures being presented to their characters from other individuals within a campaign setting (NPC "quest givers" if you will). In between these adventures, they like playing out living the high life for as long as the money they have earned carries them.

So far, their preferred games that we have played the longest are Shadowrun and Dark Heresy. Both very mission-based settings, with a very strong structure that many other gamers might call "railroading" style games, yet they have consistently chosen those games above others to play.

There is nothing wrong in that either. What you've presented is a good example of how a campaign style works with a group, because they tend to go in that type of direction.

Be it a mission-based campaign or sandbox, you do what your group likes best.

Quote from: Dropbear on March 19, 2025, 10:07:26 AMSo far, their preferred games that we have played the longest are Shadowrun and Dark Heresy. Both very mission-based settings, with a very strong structure that many other gamers might call "railroading" style games, yet they have consistently chosen those games above others to play.

Again, we're sticking on the definition of "railroad". Are you talking about adventures where the outcome is pre-determined and the GM makes sure that outcome happens no matter what the players do?

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

This is the way. Learning to run your games this way takes time. Everyone is arguing what "is a railroad" vs. "linear adventures" - but they're all moving goalposts because as a GM you end up falling into all of these relative traps learning through trial and error (and hopefully advice) which eventually, if you stick it out, end up running it like a Clockmaker.

Because it really *is* the only way to avoid the pitfalls that everyone is talking about. It's harder to see as a player, or an inexperienced GM that has never played in such games. I've *never* had a player or GM get into one of my games and experience it, and not be positively affected by it.

I'm not saying we didn't have problems. There are a metric shit-ton of behaviors that players/GM's of linear adventures (published or otherwise) that cause them to underthink the realities of my campaigns. Specifically, they often overplay the significance of anything mentioned and *always* assume there is a "key to every lock" they come across somewhere nearby. Or that everything is *meant* for their PC's to find. Or that NPC's sit around in rooms doing nothing but waiting for PC's to kick in the doors to murder them for gold. Or hell... that GOLD is even a thing and while I don't change how much starting gold players have - I'm emphatic about how the world is on the Silver Standard, and normal people trade in silver or barter. They wonder why tossing gold around gets them so much attention... and likewise wonder why when they kill monsters that gold is fairly sparse.

The level of detail both can turn off a player to these conceits, but without fail, that taste of freedom and danger when wandering around a locale isn't just a verbal replication of a Healing Store/Tavern/Dungeon Quest vendor like in a videogame. Instead it's a place where the NPC's have their own active motives that weave in-and-out of the PC's observational bubble, doing whatever it is they need to do, there are idiosyncrasies to their locations that go *way* past their assumptions. This keeps those players on the edge and draws them in with engagement beyond the "find the thing, do the thing, rinse-repeat". In my games, there are things going on, and they may do YOU.

I was reading an article about Sandboxes and the author suggested that the most difficult part of becoming a Sandbox GM was giving up on the idea that you're there to entertain the players, and they need to be entertained a la YouTube famous actual Play GMs. You need to learn to tolerate that anxiety and then let players learn to be proactive and do stuff.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 20, 2025, 06:40:22 PMI was reading an article about Sandboxes and the author suggested that the most difficult part of becoming a Sandbox GM was giving up on the idea that you're there to entertain the players, and they need to be entertained a la YouTube famous actual Play GMs. You need to learn to tolerate that anxiety and then let players learn to be proactive and do stuff.

I think that's only true at the start. Sure you can run it that way. But imagine it like this: when you're world building, the goal isn't just about making it "generic D&D fantasy", even if that is one of the goals you want it to have its own idiosyncrasies that ideally you should be leaning *into*.

That's where you should put your creative energy in terms of creating "set-pieces" (in my sandbox terminology these are not just swings, and slides, but they are slides that might be spirals, and loops, or swings that have greased seats) for your players to engage with that have their own conceits beyond the obvious. This might sound "themepark" but I contend that as long as it keeps with your worlds internal consistency, it absolutely is there to be fucked with for the pure purpose of entertainment. EVEN if this means your players hate it and want to destroy it - they have made the call that it would be entertaining to destroy it.

But yeah, there is a lot of anxiety for a new sandbox GM that is coming from AP's and module-only affairs, but they'll also find that some of those techniques do transfer over. The goal should be identifying what bad habits don't work in a sandbox - which is where that anxiety comes in. But these can be overcome pretty easy with some basic sandbox principles I maintain.