Quote from: rgrove0172;941554The only time Ive reigned in Freeform play by my players has been when their choice completely eliminated the game we had come to play. It hasn't happened often, perhaps 3 or 4 times in several decades but when it does I stopped the action, explained that they were free to proceed the way they intended but it would seriously alter the direction of the game and probably postpone the session while I prepared for something different. In every case they were open to changing their minds with some discussion and explanation and we went on as planned.

One example was a lengthy and detailed haunted mansion mystery I planned wherein one player immediately suggested burning the place down when they first laid eyes on it. The others were quickly on board and didn't care a shits if the owners complained, authorities responded etc. They were gonna fight Evil by God! I would have let them if they had insisted but thankfully they backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

Don't play with psychopaths.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941522Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941569

"Shitty referee with unimaginative players whines about things he doesn't understand, film at 10."

Quote from: saskganesh;941529That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

Litterboxing

This is my favorite new gaming term for this week.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941561Sounds like the players should've burned the referee's notes then played Risk.

Not really. There are times when the players arent role playing. They are genre-savvying the system. "Hey guys! I think we are in a murder mystery! Lets just start torturing the NPCs till they confess."

Quote from: Omega;941590Not really. There are times when the players arent role playing. They are genre-savvying the system. "Hey guys! I think we are in a murder mystery! Lets just start torturing the NPCs till they confess."

That's the players being dicks, but it's not the only way to think laterally:).

"I think the murder has been executed by a vengeful ghost, we know such things exist, but are usually shackled to a location, so let's burn the mansion down and see if we destroy its anchor to the world". That's the players being logical about it;).

no. Thats the players still being dicks and the PCs being arsonists. (Unless its ok to torch the place. In which case it may really be a viable solution.)

Though way back had some players do something similar and I allowed it. Then told them the session was over and Im off to do other things. Sorry no EXP or even treasure as they didnt face any challenge at all and crushed any treasure under tons of rock. This after I asked them if they were sure AND pointed that they were going to lose the treasure. Ok? Ok...

Then I warned them not to waste my time asking me to prep an adventure in a mine for them and then not actually go on the adventure they asked for.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941536I'm not sure, but I suspect saskganesh was responding to PrometheanVigil.

You have it. Baron Opal, we cross posted. I should have quoted PrometheanVigil, but then again, it was just "blahblah shitshit" and I didn't want to

Quote from: tenbones;941572Litterboxing

This is my favorite new gaming term for this week.

I swiped it, but it's a good one!

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941522Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

Wow, you sounds like you really know what you're writing about.

Quote from: Omega;941616no. Thats the players still being dicks and the PCs being arsonists. (Unless its ok to torch the place. In which case it may really be a viable solution.)

Except for the arson part, that's bullshit, sorry.
Arson laws aren't writtenwith murderous ghosts in mind, though, and compared to other stuff many PCS do, it's not even on the list of heaviest offences.

QuoteThough way back had some players do something similar and I allowed it. Then told them the session was over and Im off to do other things. Sorry no EXP or even treasure as they didnt face any challenge at all and crushed any treasure under tons of rock. This after I asked them if they were sure AND pointed that they were going to lose the treasure. Ok? Ok...

Then I warned them not to waste my time asking me to prep an adventure in a mine for them and then not actually go on the adventure they asked for.

And everything about it was fine, except your reaction strikes me as bizarre.

Yeah, it does seem pretty shitty for the group to just torch the mansion. Happens, though. Had a situation once involving a work stoppage at some mines. The thing really was engineered by a local rep, who was out to wrest ownership of said mines by making them appear to be haunted. Party never got to look into ANYTHING, though, once two players broke skulked around said Rep's locale, broke a window, bringing him to the door, then one of them put an arrow in his eye. The whole garrison flooded out, looking for them. A second PC set fire to a bunch of buildings, and they all ran like hell, including the other half of the party, who were, at the time, asking questions of some of the locals. They all ended up on the wanted list for murder/conspiracy. It was quite the clusterfuck. I ran with it as best I could.  The two idiots who did the damage ended up slowly fading away from the player rolls after another couple sessions. The rest of us eventually rebooted with players who, you know, try to think a little bit in character.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941571"Shitty referee with unimaginative players whines about things he doesn't understand, film at 10."

Sounds like someone tried to melt Sensei's snowflakes.:-)

Quote from: Baron Opal;941523I see. I do expect the players to have the motivation to find their own adventures. However, I also throw them a few hooks at the beginning so that they know what's out there, what the world is like, and can choose an initial theme.

Yeah, see I agree with that. The problem is sandboxing itself requires the GTA reactivity -- you attack random people, the guards/police/whatever attack the shit out of you until you die. But doing that in a plain field is boring and this is where the GM's skill in being able to craft a cinematic shootout turns it from being shitefest to something entertaining.

I've played in a survival/exploration-themed EOTE game and that was a sandbox. Problem was, outside of random encounters, finding relics and hiding away from big beasties and the odd Imperial patrols, there wasn't really much going on. It got old fast. And the guy had done a map too, planned where the wildlife was and old ruins and stuff but... errgh. And we were doing stuff like putting up laser perimeter fences around our ship and the Technician PC built a couple sentry guns which was cool and I had bought a luxury camping set (from one of the supplements) meaning while we were cooking and drinking we'd hear some of the monster getting chewed up by the guns and we'd then take the corpses and dress and cook em'!.

But it all felt... I dunno, flat.

Quote from: saskganesh;941529That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

What's the difference? A lot of the time people are describing a sandbox, they're describing a mission hub area instead.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941530I guess I'm not seeing the conflict between a structured environment and an open environment. Clearly you see the conflict. But I may be missing specific elements you require for a game to not be "shit." (If you mean literally dumping Players at a crossroads and saying, "Go" -- I have never seen anyone do that. Do people do that? If they do, I don't call that a sandbox. I call that screwing over your players with too little information to make any choices of value of any kind.)

And now that you've explained why you meant about enabling and being "good at freeform gameplay" -- I'm good at it. It's how I play. I expect the Players to come up with ideas and solutions that surprise me and react not with panic but with delight and excitement.

I can go over the bridge, under the bridge, around the bridge or cross the bridge. But I am still getting to the other side of that bridge. I guess that's the most barebones description of freeform for me.

And yes, they really do do that. The aforementioned EOTE campaign was one example of my experience of sandboxes. It was a shame -- it was a good idea, it just didn't live up to the hype.

I love seeing what my players come up with. It's always interesting to see how they overcome obstacles. I've become a fan of a idea of "minimal solution planning": planning obstacles but not the consequences of them until the obstacle is actually overcome. Otherwise, you waste most -- if not, all -- of your material on something that probably won't pan out the way you anticipated. GM'ing Mage the Awakening humbles you as a GM in this department.

Quote from: AsenRG;941547I think he's just seen mostly incompetent sandboxes, and came to associate the practice with this name. If that's the case, I'd understand why he would want to pick a different name for his games...
Or maybe he's been discussing it with people who claim to run sandbox games, yet run them in the aforementioned manner (pretending "we run the game the way Gigax, Mentzer and Holmes meant it to be run" optional;)).

Yeah, I've played in a lot of games with shitty GM's. Only ever had a few where they were good. Those guys got props and the favor got returned via bonus XP from m'wah in my games (which every single one would be playing in my game instead of GM'ing because they were having way more fun in mine than doing the GM'ing stuff -- one had some really shitty players so I was glad to hook him up with some decent ones because shitty players really fuck up a GM's flow).

Quote from: rgrove0172;941554The only time Ive reigned in Freeform play by my players has been when their choice completely eliminated the game we had come to play. It hasn't happened often, perhaps 3 or 4 times in several decades but when it does I stopped the action, explained that they were free to proceed the way they intended but it would seriously alter the direction of the game and probably postpone the session while I prepared for something different. In every case they were open to changing their minds with some discussion and explanation and we went on as planned.

One example was a lengthy and detailed haunted mansion mystery I planned wherein one player immediately suggested burning the place down when they first laid eyes on it. The others were quickly on board and didn't care a shits if the owners complained, authorities responded etc. They were gonna fight Evil by God! I would have let them if they had insisted but thankfully they backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

I would fucking jump for joy if any of my players said "hey, let's like NOT walk into the cave and instead burn the bandits out instead". Bonus EXP out the wazoonga for that. Why in the name of cock would you walk into a cave where you'll be fucking murdered by arrows if the inhabitants are in any way organized, competent or intelligent at all.

Thankfully, I've had players over time who caused the aforementioned jumping for joy. They quickly became the leaders of their respective groups.

Quote from: Omega;941590Not really. There are times when the players arent role playing. They are genre-savvying the system. "Hey guys! I think we are in a murder mystery! Lets just start torturing the NPCs till they confess."

Nice.

Quote from: saskganesh;941617You have it. Baron Opal, we cross posted. I should have quoted PrometheanVigil, but then again, it was just "blahblah shitshit" and I didn't want to

Yo quote me, I almost missed your post man -- there was like nothing in it.

Quote from: Skarg;941620Wow, you sounds like you really know what you're writing about.

Not really. Still learning every game.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503Like this, Butcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR4ZAeYtYIU&t=07m26s | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLlbNj_ewo&t=0m41s

Solid masonry. They aren't breaking these walls for sure, unless they have pickaxes and days to spare. Or explosives. Or the appropriate magic.

Climbing the beams looks very feasible if they have the right gear (no adventurer in his right mind should leave home without 50' of rope and a grappling hook) and aren't weighed down by too much armor and/or gear.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503I have had players come to me and ask me to not base the game world on internal systems and a consistent world logic because it made them feel they couldn't just do what they wanted, essentially. I then had other players come to me and said they liked how I have this realistic, logical world but then asked me to get more extreme with it where essentially there'd be a lot of no's to everything. It's weird and makes no sense the polarity of it.

I know, right? I've had the same happen to me. Which is why you, the GM, should have your game world operating under whichever rules you like best.

First, because the GM is just as entitled to having fun as everyone else (perhaps a tiny bit more considering the work he puts in). I've always viewed it as a tacit social contract; the GM doesn't tell the players how to run the PCs, and the players don't tell the GM how to run his world (except when either party asks the other for feedback, of course).

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503I tend to have creatures walking around, patrolling, eating, drinking, talking and stuff.

Your players liked it because they were immersed. It made your world easier to believe in and lended immediacy and concreteness to your descriptions. It's a nice touch.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503They also had multiple things going on to deal with during the raid and locations and stuff which goes into the realm of non-linearity but that's off-topic.

It is absolutely on topic.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503Why is this not more common? Just throwing them an environment but one which is structured instead of "here's a sandbox world: go sandbox!".

Good sandbox have plenty of structure; it's just that the structure is non-linear. Or more precisely, it does not presume that players will interact with each discrete element of the setting (e.g. the serving girl at the tavern who has a map tattooed on her back, the goblin chieftain in hex 0204, the abandoned wizard's tower in hex 1002 and the local lord) in a certain order. Or that these elements will only pop into existence when players interact with them.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503(By the way, when I said post-2000 fantasy, this is one example of what I meant in the videos).

So post-2000 fantasy is remixed pre-2000 fantasy.

Love your posts, man. I feel you're expanding your gaming horizons and I'm vicariously reliving my own discoveries through you.