Quote from: rgrove0172;942529Not my thread cranebump, I would have known better to start such a thread. The overwhelming opinion on such matters here had been well established.

I couldn't help but notice that your "if the players decide to go to Shanghai" turned into other people's "you gave them the clues that pointed to Shanghai."  That doesn't follow.  Besides simple fuckmindedness on the part of players, another possilbility is "As you turn the corpse over, you see underneath it a copy of the Shanghai Gazette newspaper." You expect, and I expect, the players to say "Who around here sells the Shanghai Gazette," but instead they yell "Off to Shanghai"!

Quote from: Opaopajr;942526And in the past few years I've been tested by an entire generation of players who don't operate on the same paradigm of "actions have consequences."

At what point do you write-off what seems like ignorance as petulance?

I don't write off anything, but I try to make my expectations as clear as I can and I'm okay with the fact that my game won't appeal to everyone.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942542Translate however the f.. you want. It's not what I said.

You'll note that my opinion, and the opinion of those that agree with me, are like three people. You categorized that as "the overwhelming opinion" when clearly it's not. It's not even remotely close. So even you don't know what you said. Or you mischaracterized your own position on purpose/out of habit, or are cognitively dissonant of your own understanding?

The Three Sandbox GM's are Watching!!!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942547I couldn't help but notice that your "if the players decide to go to Shanghai" turned into other people's "you gave them the clues that pointed to Shanghai."  That doesn't follow.  Besides simple fuckmindedness on the part of players, another possilbility is "As you turn the corpse over, you see underneath it a copy of the Shanghai Gazette newspaper." You expect, and I expect, the players to say "Who around here sells the Shanghai Gazette," but instead they yell "Off to Shanghai"!

Jesus Wept.

1. Players are investigating an Ancient Chinese Cult in San Francisco...
2. Players decide to go to Shanghai.
3. The GM Grove says "they had a good reason". How many goddamn times does it need to be quoted?

Can we stop pretending these players decided out of the fucking blue to go to Shanghai for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than purposely shoving their dick in Grove's ear?

Quote from: estar;942545Sandbox campaigns have a chicken and egg problem. The more experienced you are in life, knowledge, and in refereeing RPG. The easier it is to build up a bag of stuff to manage the ad-hoc nature of the campaign. If you are a 15 year old kid, it not so easy even with prep. If you are a 40 year old hobbyist running her first campaign, again not so easy.

For example how is a referee is going to come up with different styles of medieval peasant huts if he has doesn't know what even one looks like. Granted this is a trivial example, but there are plenty of elements used in RPG campaigns that are not commonly known via popular culture.

Centering the first campaign around a maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasures provides a nice tidy structure to get you started with fantasy roleplaying.

Finally there is no "best". Every choice has consequences attached to it. And what it is chosen it works best if it works with the way YOU think. RPG referees are in a sense mini-gods bringing a world to life. That not a straight forward task as human limitations forces a referee to pick and choose what to say and present at every moment of a session. Disciplining ther mind to do that in a way that is fun for the referee and players is different for every person.

When I write about sandbox campaigns, I try to present as A way, not THE way. The main reason it has the attention it has in recent years is because it wasn't a method that wasn't talked about much in the 80s and 90s.

Sandbox campaigns (or any other type of campaigns) are not all one thing or the other. Learning how to run entertaining railroad campaigns or mission oriented campaigns is useful for sandbox when the players choice lead them in situations where there one sensible path, or where their character's lives start to center around performing missions.

And vice versa, sometime in a campaign that mostly railroaded or centered on mission there come a point where the over direction must be chosen by the players. Learning a little bit about sandbox campaigns will make handling that easier.

I generally agree with most of this. Bolded part is the one most germane to the discussion. The part I balk at is the notion that sandboxing is being used as "the one true way". I, too, am saying "it's a way". It requires more work and effort that encompasses the other "ways" that are being bandied about. I find there is this bizarre dissonance to try and equate "storygaming" and "sandboxing" as if they're not distinct things with different requirements. As you pointed out experience is a huge factor for those exact reasons.

I would disagree with you on "best" way. A "storygamer" using those conceits of GMing will approach a linear game along that same narrow bandwidth of options. Invariably there will be moments where the PC's make decisions that may derail the linear flow of the adventure. This forces the "storygamer GM" to have to make hard decisions that invariably based on experience/personal interest/ability forces the game back on track via methods that limit agency of the players, or merely reinforce GM-fiat. Or worse, relegate the PC's as irrelevant (among other possibilities of low-value).

I would submit one *has* to go through that period in order to learn how to "sandbox". Which is spot-on when you point out it wasn't talked about during the 80's and 90's because that's when a lot of people were figuring all that stuff out. Meanwhile new blood was coming and starting from that "storygaming" approach. Once GM's get past this* (and I think most don't), they start figuring out how to "sandbox".

A decent "sandbox" GM can/will run linear adventures in the context of their sandboxes (even if their players don't realize it). But the inevitable problems of the "storygamer GM" will not be nearly as prevalent *because* the "sandbox-GM" already knows how to deal with that stuff. And the players will still not even realize it.

I ran a Talislanta hex-crawl adventure that was a gigantic T-intersection where every side-adventure etc, happened along an unmapped route where the leader of the expedition (one of the PC's who doesn't normally "lead" in the group) was making all the calls. But after much trial and tribulation he started to panic on how all these decisions on their safari were causing him to stray off course. I held up a map and showed them: it was a gigantic T-intersection, nothing more. It just happened to take place in a mountainous jungle over 300-miles of terrain and the only ultimate decision he really had to make if he stayed on course as plotted by his map was to go left, or right (based on the mission from his superiors). But because it was a hex-crawl, I fleshed everything out to make it all appear wide open. I was *fully* prepared for them to go off-roading at their discretion. So it was a linear adventure within a sandbox, left to the pure discretion of the players.

As an experienced "sandbox GM" - I can do that. As a "storygame GM" - it's much more difficult. This is why I recommend learning that method as "better". It teaches you to be more prepared as a GM and can help with improvisational skills to boot. Of course if one doesn't want to learn - that's fine too. But then when running into these problems we've both identified with that method - don't be surprised at the reaction. It's like insisting that crawling in a sprint race is the same thing. Sure we're both racing - but one *is* better than the other.

There was a young man from Cathay
On a slow boat to China one day
Was trapped near the tiller
By a sex-crazed gorilla
And China's a bloody long way

Not useful to the thread, but the PCs going off to Shanghai reminded me of the Goons' limerick.

Quote from: soltakss;942555There was a young man from Cathay
On a slow boat to China one day
Was trapped near the tiller
By a sex-crazed gorilla
And China's a bloody long way

Not useful to the thread, but the PCs going off to Shanghai reminded me of the Goons' limerick.

More useful I think than most of the posts.

Quote from: tenbones;942553I would disagree with you on "best" way.

I am not sure where you are getting that I consider Sandbox campaigns the best way of running a RPG campaign. It is the best way for me and I am glad to explain what I do to others in the hopes that find something useful for their own campaigns. However the "best" way is the way that work with how the referee things and that is fun for him and his players.

If I have a problem a person advocating something that doesn't work well for what they are trying to achieve. For example it my experience that a large majority of hobbyists do not find it fun to have character start out in the midst of a blank map and told to go forth and explore. However I personally know of several hobbyists who thrive in such situations. Another is that I consider RPG rules to be inefficient and cumbersome way of trying to do collaborative stories. Based on my experience in playing and refereeing rpg campaign and participating in collaborative fiction writing (alternate history is a favorite of mine).


A "storygamer" using those conceits of GMing will approach a linear game along that same narrow bandwidth of options. Invariably there will be moments where the PC's make decisions that may derail the linear flow of the adventure. This forces the "storygamer GM" to have to make hard decisions that invariably based on experience/personal interest/ability forces the game back on track via methods that limit agency of the players, or merely reinforce GM-fiat. Or worse, relegate the PC's as irrelevant (among other possibilities of low-value).

Quote from: tenbones;942553I would submit one *has* to go through that period in order to learn how to "sandbox".

I disagree, my experience the quality one needs to run a sandbox at the novice level is the willingness to let players trash your campaign setting. That how I got started. And seem to be a common element among the other I met who are long time sandbox referee. People whose campaign predate 2000.

Now being willing to let players trash your campaign doesn't mean you will be good at it, or that you find it natural. It just mean your frustration level over what the players do or don't do will be considerably lower. If you enjoy refereeing this get you into the zone of try fail, try again. Finally over the hump where you have enough experience to make work for most campaigns.

Most hobbyist learn by example. And my comments about the 80s and 90s are meant to illustrate that most of the examples didn't lend themselves to learning how to run a sandbox campaign. Especially after the success of Dragon Lance.

Quote from: tenbones;942553Once GM's get past this* (and I think most don't), they start figuring out how to "sandbox".

My view that we are more aware of different play styles thanks to the internet. And people are trying more things and getting the word out there. And some of it is actually "sticking" to the collective conscious of the hobby.  Hobby is continuing to diversify and many niches are well supported. And it easier for the hobbyist to find the niche that work best with the way he thinks and finds fun.

But the downside of course is that people are still people. They forget that interests changes over time, that while the detail of GURPS was appealing at one point in their lives, right now all they have the time and interest for is Microlite20.

Quote from: tenbones;942553I ran a Talislanta hex-crawl adventure that was a gigantic T-intersection where every side-adventure etc, happened along an unmapped route where the leader of the expedition (one of the PC's who doesn't normally "lead" in the group) was making all the calls. But after much trial and tribulation he started to panic on how all these decisions on their safari were causing him to stray off course.

My current issue is that I am effective as presenting the campaign as a slice of the life of the character  and the players want to play out each and every damn day of the campaign. Because I am able to have something to be done that interesting every game day. One session started as a rest and refit at a village and the sessions wound up helping a drunk guy find his lost flock of sheep. I just made it up as a throwaway encounter as a PC left a tavern. But it clicked with one player, he convinced the party it was important, and wound up being the focus of the session.

The reason why it is an annoyance to me is not that it happens, but the experience awards at the end of each session. I know all the different ways of awarding experience but none of them work well when the campaign is session after session of characters living out the game-days. I have something that better but it is still a work in progress.

Quote from: tenbones;942553As an experienced "sandbox GM" - I can do that. As a "storygame GM" - it's much more difficult. This is why I recommend learning that method as "better". It teaches you to be more prepared as a GM and can help with improvisational skills to boot.

I agree that Sandbox techniques are more flexible. But on the other hand what if the person isn't that flexible? Can they still run a fun tabletop RPG campaign?

My experience is that yes they can. It a different set of techniques, mostly revolving around being a good entertainer. But it can be done.

Most of the results are in-between, I know at the one game-store I frequent, a referee is known to be inflexible is a bit of a dick to boot. He not a terrible person just that how his personality skews. However he comes up with these imaginative campaigns and rule systems that are interesting enough to most of the game store regulars that they play in his campaign.

Again I contend the "best" way is the one that works with the way you think. However if you come complaining to about having to improvise when the players go off the rails. Then I am going to do pretty much as you suggest. Recommend to learn how to run a sandbox campaign and give the benefit of my experience.

Quote from: tenbones;942550the three sandbox gm's are watching!!!

roooooo  rok rok rok rok rok!

Quote from: CRKrueger;942551Jesus Wept.

1. Players are investigating an Ancient Chinese Cult in San Francisco...
2. Players decide to go to Shanghai.
3. The GM Grove says "they had a good reason". How many goddamn times does it need to be quoted?

Can we stop pretending these players decided out of the fucking blue to go to Shanghai for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than purposely shoving their dick in Grove's ear?

What the fuck example are YOU talking about?

Quote from: rgrove0172;942023A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

In Grover's example he said "HAD the players elected to take a ship."  Nothing at ALL about "the players DID take a ship."

Words mean things.

Quote from: soltakss;942555There was a young man from Cathay
On a slow boat to China one day
Was trapped near the tiller
By a sex-crazed gorilla
And China's a bloody long way

Not useful to the thread, but the PCs going off to Shanghai reminded me of the Goons' limerick.

There was a young lady from Exeter
And all the young men threw their sex at her
So just to be rude
She'd lay in the nude
While her parrot, a pervert, took pecks at her.

-- Peter Sellers, "The Magic Christian"

Quote from: rgrove0172;942023A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

You are a referee that doesn't like players trashing his campaign/setting. Normally that fine, however in the many post here and other threads the picture you paint is not one of a novices. So I have to ask what gives? You are telling me that with your knowledge you can't make up a voyage to Shanghai on the fly until the session is done? Do it in a way that is fun for you and your players?

That work you put into detailing San Francisco doesn't mean it wasted. Chinese cults originate in well.. China. Maybe not that exact cult. Maybe it something worse and now the PCs are going to have even a tougher challenge now they are going to the source of this madness. Why do they feel the need to go Shanghai? The answer to that is a nice way to structure further adventures.

If you want to call a halt and talk out of game that your call. But just know there are alternatives. Alternatives that work well for many of us. Given the experiences you related, I think you have the foundation to make it work for you.

But only if you are willing to let players trash your setting or your campaign.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]662[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942562In Grover's example he said "HAD the players elected to take a ship."  Nothing at ALL about "the players DID take a ship."
Words mean things.

They do, which is why you might want to read more of them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. The game was about dealing with the immediate threat at that place and time. Globetrotting is fine if that what the game is designed around, we play "Leagues of Adventure" exactly that way but in this case such a drastic move would simply have ended the scenario. So as you said, before you started in on me, TIME WAS an issue and therefor the trip a deal killer.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942201my mistake for not boring everyone with a complete rundown of the situation but it really doesn't matter. I get what you are saying and certainly I could have responded as you say. I chose not to. Its my game too. I didn't want to run a game on a ship for 3 weeks and make up a new city full of encounters. I had enough invested in San Fran I preferred to run the game there. That's as brutally honest as I can get. I was honest and open about it to the players and they understood. I could have made up some shit about a quarantine not allowing ships to leave, or pirates off the coast, or some other in game reason for them not to leave but I chose honesty instead. We had a great time playing the game after that.

So again...
1. Players are investigating an Ancient Chinese Cult in San Francisco...
2. Players decide to go to Shanghai. (Q. Where do you think they got that idea?)
3. The GM Grove says "they had a good reason". (A. Probably not random shitidea #7.)
4. Grove stops the presses, tells them to stay in San Fran.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942531You're being a deliberate tease here. Are you indirectly confirming their suspicions of how things played out? Did I waste my benefit of the doubt on you?

Commit. Clarify.

I've been made very aware my opinions on such matters,are in the extreme minority. I accept that and at some point just tire of arguing.

Storygames are not simply about "linear narrative instead of sandboxing".

Storygames are about being a group of directors (or novelists) instead of a group of actors.

If you're the novelist, sandboxing simply becomes a terrible idea. There's nothing "advanced" about it.  You're just making the novel shittier by losing focus and wasting word count for no reason.

But I hate storygames, and I really, really, REALLY can't stand some of its proponents, so feel free to keep crapping on them anyway. I approve.