I tried again to re-read it. I'm still not sure what he's going on about. How long has been GMing anyways?

Quote from: DavetheLost;930560I tried again to re-read it. I'm still not sure what he's going on about. How long has been GMing anyways?

Either too long or not long enough. I can't decide which.

http://theangrygm.com/about/

Quote from: Angry GM About PageThe Angry GM is 27-year-veteran of the table-top RPG trenches. His primary passions include running D&D, swearing, killing PCs, killing players, running Pathfinder, trying new game systems, running Savage Worlds, nitpicking, criticizing, swearing, ripping systems apart, pretending he hates Dungeon World, actually hating "storygamers," playing video games, and knitting. He is currently running D&D 5E and Pathfinder, but he runs A LOT of other things as well. So don't think he's just about the d20 s$&%. He'll run anything and he'll run it better than anyone else.

In real life, The Angry GM is called Scott Rehm by his friends and relatives, mainly because they refuse to call him "Angry" despite his insistence. He's a 37-year-old small business accountant from Long Island, New York. Do you really give a s$&% about any of that?

Assuming that he's GM'd for the entire time he's been an "Rpg veteran", is 27 years too long or too little?

Quote from: K Peterson;930675Assuming that he's GM'd for the entire time he's been an "Rpg veteran", is 27 years too long or too little?

Yes.

QuoteThe Angry GM is 27-year-veteran of the table-top RPG trenches. His primary passions include running D&D, swearing, killing PCs, killing players, running Pathfinder, trying new game systems, running Savage Worlds, nitpicking, criticizing, swearing, ripping systems apart, pretending he hates Dungeon World, actually hating “storygamers,” playing video games, and knitting.

It's the first time I find someone making a clear distinction between PCs and players worrying;)!

I've seen some good stuff from the Angry GM - his fix for 5e inspiration was a genuine improvement for example.

Not so sure on this one.

For me, the most important aspect of facilitating the sandbox style/player driven game is the system itself. Ime it has to be a system that is (i) rules lite, (ii) with fast combat, and (iii) is easily improvised/rulings on the fly - otherwise it is not possible to do the off-the-cuff side treks you will inevitably face, or incorporate random encounters (which are vital to the sandbox framework).

Quote from: Psikerlord;930835I've seen some good stuff from the Angry GM - his fix for 5e inspiration was a genuine improvement for example.

Not so sure on this one.

For me, the most important aspect of facilitating the sandbox style/player driven game is the system itself. Ime it has to be a system that is (i) rules lite, (ii) with fast combat, and (iii) is easily improvised/rulings on the fly - otherwise it is not possible to do the off-the-cuff side treks you will inevitably face, or incorporate random encounters (which are vital to the sandbox framework).

Well, rules-lite is not necessary, as long as it fits the other two requirements. But overall, I agree that this is what is most important for a system's point of view.
I'd say that the GM and players being prepared to approach the sandbox in a productive manner is actually more important, though.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;930347I disagree, provisionally. I had a player who, whenever I posed the question "What does your character want to do?" would inevitably joke "Take over the world!"
It used to frustrate me a bit, until I realized that my question was really weak. There's no context or specifics for the character to grab onto. Does he want to get the fabled Sword of Kicking Ass to take over the world? Does he want to use politics and take over certain factions? Does he want to put mind-control juice into the water supply? All those ideas assume that there is a Sword, or a faction, or mind-control juice. But I haven't said that there are any such things.

.

Sweet baby Jeebus!  I stopped asking the damn question... this is what I should have been thinking!   Seriously: I've had too many disconnects with my players because I'm very hardcore about sandboxing and player agency... and yet I've never really thought about how much harder it is for even my regular players, in my regular setting, to get invested enough in the game to meaningfully answer the question.

Talk about a D'oh! moment.

Quote from: AsenRG;930880Well, rules-lite is not necessary, as long as it fits the other two requirements. But overall, I agree that this is what is most important for a system's point of view.
I'd say that the GM and players being prepared to approach the sandbox in a productive manner is actually more important, though.

Yeah actually that is true, rules lite just makes (iii) easier I think. Certainly agree that if the players don't want a sandbox, it wont work, so having their buy in is essential!

Quote from: Psikerlord;931039Yeah actually that is true, rules lite just makes (iii) easier I think. Certainly agree that if the players don't want a sandbox, it wont work, so having their buy in is essential!

Actually, my experience says that it has worked and it will work in the future, too! You just have to make them write down their motivation;).

Then start awarding XP based on their efforts to chase their motivation, and you'll see them runnin through the sandbox you prepared in no time:D!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;930347A homemade campaign might as well, but the GM had better put that information into the game so that players can learn of them.

This is why a campaign setting that's a pastiche of clichés works so well, no matter what pretentious asshats may say. It gives the players an easy handle to grasp.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;931115This is why a campaign setting that's a pastiche of clichés works so well, no matter what pretentious asshats may say. It gives the players an easy handle to grasp.

Fuck off Vulmea, I learned what I needed to from that lesson.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;931115This is why a campaign setting that's a pastiche of clichés works so well, no matter what pretentious asshats may say. It gives the players an easy handle to grasp.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931116Fuck off Vulmea, I learned what I needed to from that lesson.

Girls, girls!  You're BOTH pretty!

Actually, I think the 'dungeon is a giant tree' you described would be cool as a three or four session adventure hook; your insects would have to be able to communicate with the humans somehow so they didn't just see this giant tree full of bugs and go "ick!  Bugs, Mister Rico!" and burn the tree down at first sight.  But the differences in movement and breathing and communication would be interesting for a bit.  Like I said, three or four sessions, maybe six.

Also, a traditional D&D style dungeon is a great way for new players to learn the game and what works in it, because they have wide choices but within a bounded environment.  But that may be a digression.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931125Actually, I think the 'dungeon is a giant tree' you described would be cool as a three or four session adventure hook; your insects would have to be able to communicate with the humans somehow so they didn't just see this giant tree full of bugs and go "ick!  Bugs, Mister Rico!" and burn the tree down at first sight.  But the differences in movement and breathing and communication would be interesting for a bit.  Like I said, three or four sessions, maybe six.

Yes, in the end I did run such a dungeon, but scaled down from my initial ambitions. It also featured more giant wasps than originally planned (I was a bit inspired by a Dungeon Crawl Classics module*). My players were pleased, immediately got the Legend of Zelda vibe I was going for, and did some creative stuff with it that I don't think would have played out the same in a different scenario.

I suppose I was vindicated to some extent, though I wish I could trade that dubious satisfaction for the comfort of not having a forum enemy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931125Also, a traditional D&D style dungeon is a great way for new players to learn the game and what works in it, because they have wide choices but within a bounded environment.

I do have a better understanding of this truth nowadays, but it should be noted that a lot of younger players are so familiar with the basics from video games that they can handle more complexity up front.


* This one I think: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/50401/Dungeon-Crawl-Classics-48-The-Adventure-Continues