Quote from: Black Vulmea;942364There are a couple of lessons to be drawn here. First, what you prep is important. We knew a cattle drive was likely to take place, based on my character's inclination and vocation, so we had the resources in place to run it. With randomizers, drop-in resources and a couple of warm neurons, a competent referee should be able to improvise enough to keep up with engaged players making the setting and the campaign their own. Fucking think ahead about what you introduce and where it might lead the players, then prep for that.

This is the straight-up, solid, bankable truth. It's not "basic" - it's he entry point into more advanced gameplay. It requires GM's to stretch a little. It also requires that GM's learn when/when not to open their flaptrap lest they send their PC's careening into an unintended sandbar because you were "waxing" with your "descriptive prose". You speak it, you better damn well bet *some* player will make note it of it and act on it - therefore you own it as a GM.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942364Second, players engaged with the setting are pearls beyond price, and telling them, 'No, you only cannot go any further than this because I'm such a limp-dick I can't improvise for ninety minutes,' when they're running with logical inferences and a desire to explore is the nadir of refereeing. Hell, saying, 'Yeah, I need a few minutes/an hour/a couple of days to get my shit together,' is better than, 'Fuck you and your excitement about the game, you go where I fucking say you go.'

Remember, we're not talking about players trying to fuck with the campaign out of boredom or spite, or circle-jerking on the campaign premise - those people can fuck straight off. We're talking about players so into the campaign that they're hungry for more, and being told, 'Sorry, I can't be bothered to go back to the kitchen,' makes you a puckered brown-eye.

Yeah for the purposes of this discussion - I'm kinda assuming that our players aren't a bunch of assholes that aren't there to play. It's true that some players may not fully "get" what you're aiming for. Its one of the most important things for me when I start a campaign to do a lot of prepwork in creating a primer for the players, where I can wax poetic all I want without being in-game, and we can have a Q/A session prior/during/after character-generation so when the game official starts I have everyone on board as much as possible to make sure they have the "scope" of the game (at least at the start) well in play. So when the game starts - I'm basically invisible and the campaign just unfolds through their gameplay and interactions with the setting and its NPC's.

There is an alternative viewpoint. Some groups just don't care as much for the "neutral verisimilitude and integrity of the setting. It might be a secondary, tertiary or lower goals but its not the Holy Grail for all groups or all games. Maybe that's story gamer thinking or what have you but isn't one of the reasons some people on this forum are so touchy the dreaded S word because they were told their play styles where Badwrongfun and should die in a fire or whatever the fuck they're saying now and their preferred playstyle the best of the best.

Rgrove seems to have perhaps goofed communicating the premise and limits of his game. But sandbox games fail for similar and their own set of reasons including some just don't enjoy them, have the time to prep them or their premise or preferred genre doesn't work well as pure Sandbox.

Which is why I said upthread that it's perfectly fine to play Storygames in a linear fashion. And as you are pointing out - it takes less prep and less work. There's a reason for that: it's more basic. That's all I've been saying.

Grove (and perhaps others) take passive/aggressive offense at the idea of calling that style of gaming "basic". Well, from the vantage point of running large-scale sandbox games, that's exactly what it is. I'm not trying to imply they're somehow less of a person because of it. Conversely I'm not going to pretend it's not something that it is. /shrug I make no allowances for people's feelings on their identity. I think it's a silly idea at best.

You don't *ever* see me attacking people for running "one-shots" for the same reason. I don't think I've run a one-shot in at least two-decades (unless I was filling in for a session due to absences), but I know they have a lot of value for those that like them. But one-shots are pretty basic for me to set up and run. I don't find them particularly challenging, and thus I don't run them. I *like* the challenge of running a sandbox vs. one-shots, or Storygames. I have nothing against any of them, and my sandbox campaigns can and do indeed contain them to some extent.

Circling back round (again) YES there are inherent problems with running sandbox games - but the sandbox-style of play pretty much removes most of the issues associated with Storygame play and requires more consideration and challenge - which, again, is why I run them.

Anecdotally<-note, I have only had one player that has played in my games that was a Storygamer that didn't prefer my method. But it was largely because he couldn't approach any of the things in the campaign from a non-storygamer perspective. He assumed every little thing in the game worked by videogame logic. "Oh look there are several dozen hungry peasants outside the halfling quarter - I go in and buy 14 loaves of bread to distribute them!" - despite everyone in the party telling him not to do it (because he didn't bring enough food - and they were particularly ravenous) one food-riot and ten-dead peasants later... he couldn't understand why things weren't working out. It was "too realistic" (insert eyerolls here).

He'd walk around looking for buttons to press, levers to pull in order to solve problems that actually demanded some consideration. So yeah - I get it, there are players out there that don't like that kinda detail. But then I firmly agree I'm not the GM for them too. However, I'm more than willing to bet I can turn them. Most of my new players now have come to me this way and are converts. I think any decent sandbox-GM can do this.

Edit: but I should amend - becoming a decent sandbox GM takes time, and lots of failures, dusting one's self off and getting back in the saddle.

Quote from: tenbones;942412Anecdotally<-note, I have only had one player that has played in my games that was a Storygamer that didn't prefer my method. But it was largely because he couldn't approach any of the things in the campaign from a non-storygamer perspective. He assumed every little thing in the game worked by videogame logic. "Oh look there are several dozen hungry peasants outside the halfling quarter - I go in and buy 14 loaves of bread to distribute them!" - despite everyone in the party telling him not to do it (because he didn't bring enough food - and they were particularly ravenous) one food-riot and ten-dead peasants later... he couldn't understand why things weren't working out. It was "too realistic" (insert eyerolls here).

He'd walk around looking for buttons to press, levers to pull in order to solve problems that actually demanded some consideration. So yeah - I get it, there are players out there that don't like that kinda detail. But then I firmly agree I'm not the GM for them too. However, I'm more than willing to bet I can turn them. Most of my new players now have come to me this way and are converts. I think any decent sandbox-GM can do this.

Edit: but I should amend - becoming a decent sandbox GM takes time, and lots of failures, dusting one's self off and getting back in the saddle.

Probably yes, but it would take time and effort;).

Quote from: AsenRG;942377We play "dealing with the haunted house issue".

That is "Beyond the Supernatual"... :cool:

Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

You narrativists are pretty, too.

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

Ohferfuckssake, is the notion that a referee should be able to improvise and have some modicum of understanding that words fucking mean things to other people really in need of a counter-argument?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942434Ohferfuckssake, is the notion that a referee should be able to improvise and have some modicum of understanding that words fucking mean things to other people really in need of a counter-argument?

Yes! No, wait...no. I dunno? You tell me.

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

I must've missed the post about the way I GM. Zing! Seriously, though. What is the One True Way you're referring to?

Quote from: tenbones;942412Which is why I said upthread that it's perfectly fine to play Storygames in a linear fashion. And as you are pointing out - it takes less prep and less work. There's a reason for that: it's more basic. That's all I've been saying.

Grove (and perhaps others) take passive/aggressive offense at the idea of calling that style of gaming "basic". Well, from the vantage point of running large-scale sandbox games, that's exactly what it is. I'm not trying to imply they're somehow less of a person because of it. Conversely I'm not going to pretend it's not something that it is. /shrug I make no allowances for people's feelings on their identity. I think it's a silly idea at best.

You don't *ever* see me attacking people for running "one-shots" for the same reason. I don't think I've run a one-shot in at least two-decades (unless I was filling in for a session due to absences), but I know they have a lot of value for those that like them. But one-shots are pretty basic for me to set up and run. I don't find them particularly challenging, and thus I don't run them. I *like* the challenge of running a sandbox vs. one-shots, or Storygames. I have nothing against any of them, and my sandbox campaigns can and do indeed contain them to some extent.

Circling back round (again) YES there are inherent problems with running sandbox games - but the sandbox-style of play pretty much removes most of the issues associated with Storygame play and requires more consideration and challenge - which, again, is why I run them.

Anecdotally<-note, I have only had one player that has played in my games that was a Storygamer that didn't prefer my method. But it was largely because he couldn't approach any of the things in the campaign from a non-storygamer perspective. He assumed every little thing in the game worked by videogame logic. "Oh look there are several dozen hungry peasants outside the halfling quarter - I go in and buy 14 loaves of bread to distribute them!" - despite everyone in the party telling him not to do it (because he didn't bring enough food - and they were particularly ravenous) one food-riot and ten-dead peasants later... he couldn't understand why things weren't working out. It was "too realistic" (insert eyerolls here).

He'd walk around looking for buttons to press, levers to pull in order to solve problems that actually demanded some consideration. So yeah - I get it, there are players out there that don't like that kinda detail. But then I firmly agree I'm not the GM for them too. However, I'm more than willing to bet I can turn them. Most of my new players now have come to me this way and are converts. I think any decent sandbox-GM can do this.

Edit: but I should amend - becoming a decent sandbox GM takes time, and lots of failures, dusting one's self off and getting back in the saddle.

The anecdote...is that what storygaming is? I'm serious, because if so, I am not a storygamer nor a storygamer GM. We enjoy some "metagaming" neatly woven into the fiction and base realism on the fiction (if that makes sense), but just assuming everything is a thing that matters or that situations will always go your way is not how we play. We do enjoy player-driven mechanics, but not co-GMing "I win!" buttons.

Honestly, it's difficult to peg a term to our play style because we just play the way that's fun. We like crunch, but not too much. We like letting dice fall where they may, but with some leeway as to the result. We enjoy a simple ecomony between GM and player that's player-empowering. All combined, we still tweak the dials with regularity, focusing in and out on various desires.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942429You narrativists are pretty, too.

I'm fabulous, bitch!

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

I dunno? Are you actually arguing here? You seem to be making a passive-aggressive claim that no one here is making besides you. I assume you're implying I'm saying that? For sake of discussion - I've already said three times in this thread (at least) why I sandbox (so I don't have the problems that Grove has) - I've also said it's fine to GM that way (in many posts), but as he's shown multiple times in almost every thread he posts - he has the same problem. None of which happens if you do things differently.

The disconnect seems to come from those that *feel* their way (Storygaming) is the same thing as Sandboxing. It isn't. There is no One True Way mang - but if one is going to have issues using one method that the other method solves - then what is actually the issue aside from the people that continue to hammer nails with sanding block then complain about it? (or passive-aggressively pretend that sanding blocks are actually hammers).

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250You honestly think I ran a game and didn't give the players reasons to explore the house? Are you as stupid as you are offensive? Of course there were reasons but they bowed to the risks involved and decided to sacrifice them in the way of a quick and safe resolution to the threat. In a campaign game I might have been ok with it but as said, THAT was the point of the damn game. Im out, I don't need to defend my point here, its not even my fucking thread.

In this case I really side with you.  If  you clearly communicated "I want to run a one shot about exploring a haunted house," and the players agreed, and then said "Fuck it it's too risky we'll just torch it," your players are being dickweevils.

It's rather like showing up for a wargame and deciding you don't want to fight a battle.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942464The anecdote...is that what storygaming is? I'm serious, because if so, I am not a storygamer nor a storygamer GM. We enjoy some "metagaming" neatly woven into the fiction and base realism on the fiction (if that makes sense), but just assuming everything is a thing that matters or that situations will always go your way is not how we play. We do enjoy player-driven mechanics, but not co-GMing "I win!" buttons.

I tend to not like "storygaming" or "sandboxing" in broad discussion, but it serves as shorthand. So in my anecdote, the player in question operated from a logic that you'd see in videogames. He was a big fan of 4e (and whether those two are connected are irrelevant to me). So for example, they ended up trapped in an underground temple dedicated to a spider-demon. Instead of looking for a reasonable means out - he saw a sacrificial altar (that was "active" with the essence of the spider-demon) and there was a handprint in the stone with ancient brown stains around it. With absolutely *zero* thought he said "Oh I know how to get out." and he immediately slits his hand places it on the altar and swears allegiance to the spider-demon. Of course the more intelligent players actually looked for a physical means out - and despite the fact his character was a thief that knew nothing about the occult, he tripped through every wire of his own construction because he approached the setting like it was a videogame. Every "deadend" must have button or a "thing" that would resolve the immediate issue.

He assumed that everything any character knew, or encountered was free knowledge for his PC. In essence - he wasn't even in effect roleplaying a character, as much as he was just playing himself. It did not end well. It further didn't help that he tried to apply his modern moral sensibilities (as fucked up as they were) to the often cruel nature of the setting and kept triggering himself. He wanted to be led by the nose from encounter to encounter, kill stuff, take the gold of the freshly killed monsters, then go back to the inn and wait for the next adventure. I shit you not. Poor guy took a fucking beating in my game needlessly because he wasn't engaging in the conceits of the what everyone else was doing.

I have no problems with well written modules, but some people only want to play adventures that are constructed and manicured experiences like that. It's a big flowchart. I don't run campaigns like that, because I, and my players find that format very limiting and too narrow to be enjoyable in the long-term.

As for railroading - I firmly agree that there is a place for it. I use an extremely light touch. A well-run sandbox incorporates those methods within it. Just like you can have one-shots in your sandbox, and war-campaigns, and whatever else as long as you give it the right structure and setup without turning the sandbox into a litterbox.