Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942562What the fuck example are YOU talking about?



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.

I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

Quote from: estar;942560I 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.

I'm not asserting you said Sandbox games are the best (you said it was merely different - which I agree with you on that point), until this post, I didn't know. But in terms of "Best" - you're mixing objectivity with subjectivity. As you even mentioned (which again I agree with) experience matters. A lot. Some people do not have the capacity/interest/desire/whatever to learn a more complex means of GMing for a desired effect. Fully accepted.But one method encompasses the other. The other does not. To the degree that someone can use a basic method well does not diminish what is possible between methods. On that point alone - I say the Sandbox method is better. I'm not denigrating the subjective value a person derives from running a Storygame, not in the slightest. That someone *feels* they're being denigrated because I point out that one method does more things than their particular method of choice has nothing to do with objective fact.

I would also submit that what is "fun" is also relative to one's experience. This too is a subjective matter that can't be easily measured other than by anecdotal experience. But I'm always willing to put that to the test at my table.

I mentioned that I believe (though I have no evidence other than circumstantial) that good Sandbox GM's are rare because most give up the ghost on it due to the requirements (or other extenuating circumstances, one presumes). It seems logical to me that the perceived divide exists in this interval - where there is natural skepticism by those that know, by doing, vs. those that think they know because of their relative inexperience (for whatever reason) and then attach their identities to that state.

Quote from: estar;942560If 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).

This is getting into an important distinction within the method itself. Something we've *barely* ever discussed here (and it might be worthwhile to make a separate thread if everyone is interested) and that is: what makes a good sandbox GM? Degrees of experience doing a sandbox matter too. I've said in other posts sandbox games have many more ways to implode than a Storygame because the GM is attempting to inherently spin more plates. For example - I would never slap a bunch of characters on a map and say "go forth" - without giving the players as much context as I possibly could without boring them to tears. That alone is an important technique to learn. My stance on the "story" is simple - I don't do collaborative stories - that's just the byproduct of play.

Quote from: estar;942560I 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.

I don't see how this is a disagreement. You're illustrating exactly how one ends up becoming a sandbox GM. As I pointed out in the very quote you cited - it's the linear Storygame GM that faces these internal conflicts due to how they GM that forces them to come up with methods that will, assuming they even stick with it, will evolve their method into slowly accumulating sandbox-style tools. The trashing of your game - that willingness - is absolutely true. Its no less true once you fully adopt the sandbox-method. That goes back to my earlier claim about the illusion of control upthread. On the quote you're citing - I'm just trying to illustrate the point where the rubber hits the road and you either say "fuck it, this is too hard." or you erect your bubble of rationales as a Storygaming GM and say "Yep I'm awesome and this is the only way to do it." Subsequently you'll keep running into the same issues that will further cement that bias, until you run into Sandbox GM's who offer their solution to fix it - which then affronts their sensibilities.

Quote from: estar;942560Now 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.

Estar, my DONG-sashed soldier from Fort Tusken - I swear we're saying the same thing. I just may sound like more of an ass to other's eyes doing it.

Quote from: estar;942560My 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.

I would agree with this too. I was a DIE-HARD D&D guy. I played other stuff, but now I'm here doing 1e Forgotten Realms Greybox fluff with Savage Worlds, a foot firmly in the past and with a new-fangled modern system. But I'm keeping it sandy. So much sand that I got Shai-Hulud casting its shadow over me and my players.

Quote from: estar;942560I 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.

And the details of that discussion is fodder for the Ultimate Sandbox thread. I, too, think anyone can learn to sandbox. Like anything else - it just takes practice and time.

Quote from: estar;942560Again 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.

I think this is pretty much what me, CRK and AsenG have been saying (among others).

Quote from: rgrove0172;942571I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

Yeah, they never got that far because you told them "Guys, stay in San Fran."  Or have you just been improv'ing all the subsequent explanations?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942562Words mean things.

Yes, they most certainly do, so let's take a look at them again.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250Of 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 [by burning down the haunted house].

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason [to go to Shanghai] 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. (emphases added - BV)

In both cases, this supposed referee - again, I don't think Grover is A Real Boy - stated that the players were at least somewhat justified making the choices Grover reported, to wit, burn down the haunted house rather than investigate it and make a trip to Shanghai as part of investigating events transpiring in San Francisco.

Except . . . the example of the San Francisco game didn't come from actual play

Quote from: rgrove0172;942571I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

So the players 'hypothetically' could be justified in deciding to go to Shanghai, based on the events in the game, which suggests that, if this game really happened at all, there were clues or descriptions or whatever-the-fuck-ever that might've led players to surmise going to Shanghai could be a good idea.

But I don't believe this ever happened at all. See, every time Grover posts something about his games and receives feedback - often negative feedback - the examples change, for which Grover blames us.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147You guys continually spout off with limited and often incorrect information.

The example from the Star Wars game. The example from the haunted house. The example of San Francisco. Each time the example changes as the replies roll in. Of course they had freedom to explore the space station. Of course they had reasons not to burn the haunted house down. Of course the example of the trip to Shanghai was only hypothetical.

And nearly every time Grover offers an example, then 'clarifies' the example with all the information he didn't include originally, it's orthogonal to what pretty much everyone else is posting about the same topic

The patter(n) occurs over and over again, thread after thread, leading to me to two possible explanations: (1) Grover is the stupidest fucker on the planet, or (2) Grover is an elaborate troll.

As for me, I'm done with this bullshit. I use my Ignore list for one reason and one reason only, because reading a given poster is a waste of minutes of my life I will never get back. Grover's dead to me, as of now.

Quote from: tenbones;942572I'm not asserting you said Sandbox games are the best (you said it was merely different - which I agree with you on that point), until this post,

...I think this is pretty much what me, CRK and AsenG have been saying (among others).

[/QUOTE]
Yeah in response to this comment and your similair comments later in the post, we are pretty much on the same page.

Quote from: tenbones;942572I didn't know. But in terms of "Best" - you're mixing objectivity with subjectivity. As you even mentioned (which again I agree with) experience matters. A lot. Some people do not have the capacity/interest/desire/whatever to learn a more complex means of GMing for a desired effect. Fully accepted.But one method encompasses the other. The other does not. To the degree that someone can use a basic method well does not diminish what is possible between methods. On that point alone - I say the Sandbox method is better. I'm not denigrating the subjective value a person derives from running a Storygame, not in the slightest. That someone *feels* they're being denigrated because I point out that one method does more things than their particular method of choice has nothing to do with objective fact.

I would also submit that what is "fun" is also relative to one's experience. This too is a subjective matter that can't be easily measured other than by anecdotal experience. But I'm always willing to put that to the test at my table.

My perspective is naunced on this issue. When I ran a boffer LARP chapter with 30 to 50 players attending an event, I had to learn how to herd cats in regards to what "fun". It not easy is very different than catering to a group of 3 to 8 individuals. But I learned how to do it. Most of the time I think I succeeded but I had some duds as well.

My observation is that there are some things that can work regardless of individual interests. Things that form the basis of good mass entertainment. This effect allowed me to juggle running an event where some things has to work for all 30 to 50 players, while other things can focus on a small group of them. I found the ideas that work here also works for the smaller groups tabletop RPGs as well. So I think the idea of "fun" and "best" is more objective than what you are making it to be here.

But... the thing is that even with my experience at no time it was always a crap shot as to which INDIVIDUAL player like the stuff I was presented. While I had more successes as a WHOLE, when it come to which player enjoyed that particular event, I might as well as have rolled dice. The only rule that worked was to personally interact with people and learned their likes and dislikes. Climb the steep learning curve to learn more about my players.

So you do have a point in a way. It just more complex than saying there are rules and it all subjective.

Now when it comes to tabletop RPGs one reason I continued to focus on Sandbox campaigns because running the game as a pen & paper holodeck made the campaign player neutral for the most part. Yes I played my setting serious, but I had campaign where it was treated as a romp through Merrie Olde England, and campaigns where the facts of life and existance were debated all using the same Majestic Wilderlands setting. Most of the time the players just want to get on with adventuring, kill things, take their shit, and be the heroes. In that respect it mirrors our own world where there are people living their lives all three ways I mentioned and more.

A secondary benefit that players tend to talk to each more naturally and hash out conflicting goals in a way many cooperative groups would do in real life. It rare that any one particular goal is ignored. Many times where the consensus was "We will do that but later".

Quote from: tenbones;942572I mentioned that I believe (though I have no evidence other than circumstantial) that good Sandbox GM's are rare because most give up the ghost on it due to the requirements (or other extenuating circumstances, one presumes).

My contention is that we been only talking about it for ten years as opposed to forty years (or thirty years of Dragonlance style adventure paths) of traditional adventures.

The fact that most first published adventures were tournament dungeons had a huge founder effect. Then Dragonlance had it own outsized impact.

Until the late 2000s, the only people who ran sandbox campaigns were the folks that did it themselves. After the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, this type of campaign had a formal name, people started talking about, and word got around. I had a small part in all that.

Quote from: tenbones;942572This is getting into an important distinction within the method itself. Something we've *barely* ever discussed here (and it might be worthwhile to make a separate thread if everyone is interested) and that is: what makes a good sandbox GM?

I would contribute. I still say the foundation is pretty simple, are you willing to let players trash your setting or your campaign? If that bothers the potential referee to a greater or lesser degree then learning how to run a Sandbox will be a steep learning curve.

Everything about managing sandbox campaigns is about how to make trashing the setting fun and challenging for everybody involved.

Quote from: tenbones;942572Degrees of experience doing a sandbox matter too. I've said in other posts sandbox games have many more ways to implode than a Storygame because the GM is attempting to inherently spin more plates.

The one that pretty specific to sandbox campaigns is motivation. The willingness of the players to interact with the setting as his character. But I learn how to make it work for players with low drive. Making their character part of an interesting organization that gives them missions well help.

I run CoC where "burn down the haunted house" isn't a bad idea...until you awaken the thing inside that was being held in check by the elder signs carved into the support beams and floorboards.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with limiting the scope of the sandbox. I've run plenty of games which the players readily accepted there were walls to the sandbox because the concept of the campaign was about exploring and interacting with Location XYZ and not about wandering anywhere.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942481We frightened off the OP days ago...

What, you didn't think that yelling at him that he's doing it wrong might have an effect?

Wow.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;942619What, you didn't think that yelling at him that he's doing it wrong might have an effect?

Wow.

Vigil's been here 5 years, he knows the place, and continued posting well beyond Gronan's rather vigorous challenge of his definition of a sandbox.  Look at the number of posts, he doesn't make many. He seemed to check out right around the time the thread became another version of "Narrativist Seeking Acceptance".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;942619What, you didn't think that yelling at him that he's doing it wrong might have an effect?

Wow.

I'm surprised! So many people here are at worst quiet when they're not into something. They don't shit all over things they don't like. It's not as if people like...I dunno...CRKrueger aren't open-minded and friendly towards opposing ideas.

Yes, CRKrueger. That was very much a jab. Now do what you do. I don't care. You're a bully and nothing you post will convince me otherwise.

I never drink this early in the evening.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942571I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

... [I have yet to find the smilie that adequately expresses my disappointment in your drollery. But when I do, it goes here.]

Started to, but couldn't get around to it, so you continued on elaborating as though you had a necessary Table Talk. Ok, Schrödinger Cat anecdotes it is then. Wake us when you decide to be genuine.

Quote from: estar;942591My perspective is naunced on this issue. When I ran a boffer LARP chapter with 30 to 50 players attending an event, I had to learn how to herd cats in regards to what "fun". It not easy is very different than catering to a group of 3 to 8 individuals. But I learned how to do it. Most of the time I think I succeeded but I had some duds as well.

I've never run a LARP. But your experience to catering to any size of a group sounds like my own experience too. Some massive successes, and some spectacular flops. And alot of varying degress in between.

Quote from: estar;942591My observation is that there are some things that can work regardless of individual interests. Things that form the basis of good mass entertainment. This effect allowed me to juggle running an event where some things has to work for all 30 to 50 players, while other things can focus on a small group of them. I found the ideas that work here also works for the smaller groups tabletop RPGs as well. So I think the idea of "fun" and "best" is more objective than what you are making it to be here.

But... the thing is that even with my experience at no time it was always a crap shot as to which INDIVIDUAL player like the stuff I was presented. While I had more successes as a WHOLE, when it come to which player enjoyed that particular event, I might as well as have rolled dice. The only rule that worked was to personally interact with people and learned their likes and dislikes. Climb the steep learning curve to learn more about my players.

So you do have a point in a way. It just more complex than saying there are rules and it all subjective.

Yep. There's always that one little detail beyond the obvious. Always that one little thing you didn't think of that caters to the chemistry of the individual and the group as it pertains to the content in your presentation, and the execution of game. And this is almost always on a session-by-session basis. Yeah it's a high-wire act, and I fully concede it's not for everyone. But I advocate for it because I've had radically higher levels of "awesome moments" in these kinds of games than I ever had running a manicured storygame-module.  

Quote from: estar;942591Now when it comes to tabletop RPGs one reason I continued to focus on Sandbox campaigns because running the game as a pen & paper holodeck made the campaign player neutral for the most part. Yes I played my setting serious, but I had campaign where it was treated as a romp through Merrie Olde England, and campaigns where the facts of life and existance were debated all using the same Majestic Wilderlands setting. Most of the time the players just want to get on with adventuring, kill things, take their shit, and be the heroes. In that respect it mirrors our own world where there are people living their lives all three ways I mentioned and more.

A secondary benefit that players tend to talk to each more naturally and hash out conflicting goals in a way many cooperative groups would do in real life. It rare that any one particular goal is ignored. Many times where the consensus was "We will do that but later".

I've never gamed with conflict-averse personalities long-term until I came here to Dallas. My LA group were a rotating cast of alpha-personalities that took to Sandbox play with ease. I have a couple of guys here with me now in Dallas that did the same - but they weren't sandbox style players when we met. But a couple of my players are very conflict-averse in real-life and when they started gaming with me, it was a shock to them about how much freedom I allowed. They consistently suffer from the "Tyranny of Choice" because the only thing I really demand is that they play their character the way they want to play them, in context of the setting. Strangely these two guys play in another group on our off-nights, where they do Storygaming and modules. I always wonder why they keep coming back to play with me. Especially after sessions where their lack of decisiveness creates more conflict in-game because other wheels are moving and the demands of my games tend to require responses. These are guys that get mildly "triggered" by the shit that goes on in my games (though they may not admit it, the rest of us know its true).

They come back because they feel my games are unpredictable. Anything can happen, nothing is certain, people can have triumphs and disasters, live and die - sometimes in the same night. And despite the fact that sometimes we can wax a little dark, it's almost always high-stakes where the PC's are front and center 100% of the time. I like to feed my players - I give to them, in the campaign, what they put in. And yeah that takes work, but it's gratifying to me because I don't pretend to be "in the band" - I'm just the band manager. But I recognize not all players are up to that task of playing lead-guitar and rocking Madison Square Garden weekly. I adjust content for them accordingly on an individual basis because I know some of them, deep down, are storygamers. They want to go from encounter A to encounter B, have the flavor text read to them. Swing, kill, loot. rinse/repeat. But the rest aren't.

It's not that I don't have those things in my games - of course your'e going to kill shit and take their stuff at some point (unless you're not that kinda PC) but it's all the other ramifications of doing that stuff that I give equal weight to that changes the nature of the game. And ones freedom to interact within those boundaries are likewise engaged.

They come back because they find that after running around in our sandbox, playing with the storygaming group is less satisfying because it's formulaic and designed for a specific generic experience. I'm not saying that every sandbox game I've run has been awesome - I'm saying we've had enough ridiculously awesome moments that can only come from sandbox-style play, that once you have them - you want *that*. All the time. Every time. And I don't take credit for it, because as I've come to realize *I* can't make this stuff happen. That's the alchemy of the sandbox. It's about the players doing stuff and the GM has to believe in those PC's. I just create the sandbox they play in. What happens is the "crapshoot" you refer to below, heh.

Quote from: estar;942591My contention is that we been only talking about it for ten years as opposed to forty years (or thirty years of Dragonlance style adventure paths) of traditional adventures.

The fact that most first published adventures were tournament dungeons had a huge founder effect. Then Dragonlance had it own outsized impact.

Until the late 2000s, the only people who ran sandbox campaigns were the folks that did it themselves. After the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, this type of campaign had a formal name, people started talking about, and word got around. I had a small part in all that.

I think this is a very good point. I'm interested in it, because I honestly don't know anyone personally that hasn't had this same experience that has gamed this long. Grove, for example might be the first I've encountered online (I'm sure there are others). I also think it's why he gets a little extra attention despite his ever-moving goalpost points - because if we take him at his word in terms of how long he's been GMing, he's a unicorn.

Quote from: estar;942591I would contribute. I still say the foundation is pretty simple, are you willing to let players trash your setting or your campaign? If that bothers the potential referee to a greater or lesser degree then learning how to run a Sandbox will be a steep learning curve.

Everything about managing sandbox campaigns is about how to make trashing the setting fun and challenging for everybody involved.

I suspect this statement is about as foundational a principle as I can imagine for sandboxing.

Quote from: estar;942591The one that pretty specific to sandbox campaigns is motivation. The willingness of the players to interact with the setting as his character. But I learn how to make it work for players with low drive. Making their character part of an interesting organization that gives them missions well help.

Yes! Context. The more context the better for low-drive players. This way players know what their PC's are about and why they do what they do. They're people with friends and enemies, loved ones etc. I also like to do pre-game sitdowns with my players before the campaign kicks off to talk about their characters. *I* want to be a fan of their characters as much as I want them to be a fan of the sandbox. They go hand-in-hand. So setting up that context for whatever kind of PC they wanna play is important.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942561roooooo  rok rok rok rok rok!

I can't... get this... sound out of my head now...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]663[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942677aren't open-minded

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942677nothing you post will convince me otherwise.

Great, I need another Irony-Meter.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942710Great, I need another Irony-Meter.

Get in line.