First off, I love GURPS and the Fantasy Trip definitely infused with Steve Jackson's voice and sentiments. However thing about GURPS and The Fantasy Trip they are more concerned about presenting presenting tools to use during a campaign and don't talk a lot about what you do to run a campaign. At least for the early versions of GURPS. The tone of TFT and early GURPS was more oriented to "Hey! Want a better set of tools to use for your campaigns, here it is."

From Into the Labyrinth page 4

QuoteBest of all, we feel that THE FANTASY TRIP: IN THE LABYRINTH is complete enough to allow new GMs and players to participate without extensive study and improvisation. Existing games are marred by serious flaws and omissions which force players to rewrite the rules for themselves before they begin. Every group plays differently. By extensive playtesting, we think we have "filled in the holes" to the point where Game Masters can use their creativity and imagination to devise better and more realistic game worlds, rather than wasting it in trying to figure out how to play

Quote from: Skarg;943620Contrast to my experience of having started inventing games and learning wargames when I was a kid, then seeing D&D and TFT about 1980 and choosing TFT because it seemed to make far more sense, and then ignoring most D&D and other RPGs after GURPS came out circa 1986. I'd recommend reading TFT's campaign book "In The Labyrinth", which explains how to run a TFT campaign. It just assumes you will run a logical game based on exploring established hex maps for regions, towns and locations. It has lots of good GM advice for logic-based play written circa 1980. It has rules for tunneling, for how far noise travels through hex maps, detailed realism-based rules for encumbrance, rules for travel and getting lost. It is written down and compared to whitebox D&D is quite "formal" while still leaving room for how to GM (though always explaining that things should make sense and have reasons).

I re-read Into the Labyrinth. Like early GURPS there is little in the way of advice of structuring your campaign other than most generic type. What it excels at is presenting a bunch of sensibly organized tools that are useful to run a campaign.

I am have to disagree that it was advising sandbox play. Or any other type of campaign style for that matter. The focus read like what was outlined on page 4.

QuoteGame Masters can use their creativity and imagination to devise better and more realistic game worlds, rather than wasting it in trying to figure out how to play

Quote from: Skarg;943620Of course it's just one game system and a campaign book only some players back then saw or read, but it is a written functional system for good "sandbox/hexcrawl" GMing. Starting from there, then layers of experience help to do it well and not have some issues, but that's just learning from experience.

While I disagree it advocates sandbox play, I do agree with this. I never ran a campaign of TFT but it overall it similiar to what I read and more importantly used in GURPS 2nd Edition. I had zero issues in using GURPS the same way I used AD&D when I switched and the focus on realism and sensible rules help me fleshed out many details of the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Skarg;943620It's interesting to me that now sandbox play is being taken as something re-invented or new and associated with a specific D&D product, or that people would get inspiration for that from computer games such as Civilization, as to me it seems like just a natural way to play tabletop RPGs.

I blogged about the origin of talking about sandbox campaign. People certainly played and refereed sandbox campaign. But nobody was talking about this as a distinct style. Certainly stuff like Steve Jackson created helped people running sandboxes but as I shown that was not the focus.

Quote from: Voros;943657lol you may be one of the few with that actual experience. But even you weren't at all the tables in Chicago, San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, etc. How did Lee Gold, Greg Stafford or Sandy Petersen run the game?  Plus all the kids and adults running the game through the 80s. Once the game was out there people immediately took to tinkering and twisting it into new shapes and for new purposes.

They are not the same thing. Once OD&D was published and escaped into the wild then a new phase of gaming began.  Before it was pretty much the social scene of miniature wargamers throughout the United States with the center in the Upper Midwest. Two distinct phases and yes you are correct it is hard to gauge what people did after the release of OD&D.

But from the first Braustein to the release of OD&D miniature wargamers in the upper midwest and through the country were doing all kinds of things. Thanks to Playing at the World and other source, we have a good idea of the chain of events that led to OD&D. But those same sources also talk about the other things that were going on. Gronan would be better than me at explaining the different types of games that were run. But I have a distinct impression it was a crazy quilt of stuff dealing with all things historical, science fiction, and fantasy.

Quote from: Voros;943663But the evangelical and dogmatic stream in the OSR is out there no matter how much you want to deny those hectoring voices.

They exist, want to see them come out of the woodwork just yell AD&D sucks over on the Knights and Knaves forum. I what I do contend is that their existence doesn't matter in regards to the larger OSR. OSRIC has a closed side in that it not 100% open content like Swords & Wizardry. It was designed that way because Stuart Marshall, Matt Finch, and the Knights and Knaves community are preservationists and want to get more material for AD&D out. Not for something similiar.

But the catch is that once they shown how they leveraged the OGL along with Basic Fantasy, the gate was thrown wide open for anybody else to do the same. The fact that early distribution focused on Lulu was just icing on the cake. Right from the get go there was no bottleneck, no gatekeeper other than time and effort for ANYBODY to getting their vision of classic D&D out there.

Grognardia was popular but wasn't a gatekeeper. Knights and Knaves community was important to the genesis of OSRIC but again it never acted as a gatekeeper.

Quote from: Voros;943663There's a reason it keeps popping up as a criticism outside of the Dragonfoot, etc circles and its not because everyone else is imagining it, or are evil 'storygamers.' I've seen at least as much pretension among OSR groupies as storygamers. People love to form their tribes and point and yell at the 'other' side.

They are not imagining anything other than fact the individual fans are anything more than being asshats about their love of classic D&D.

Of course it is understandable given the example of Forge, and certain publishers that they may be more important than they are. The Forge lead to a centralized place distributing games the Indie Press Revolution. Publishers by virtue of copyright controlled the content of their game. However neither factor is applicable to the OSR. So no matter how popular and annoying a promoter, publisher, or player was or is, they have little if any ability to influence what other do.

And it work vice versa, there is a little I can do to control somebody that being an asshat and who involved in the OSR. Nor would I want that control if it was possible. The security of the OGL and the spread of digital distribution and print on demand are far better guarantees of creative freedom than anything a person could do.

Quote from: estar;943679...what I do contend is that their existence doesn't matter in regards to the larger OSR.

On this and the benefits of digital distro we definitely agree. How many remember wargamers who hated D&D anymore? Ultimately what matters is the creative content and what makes it to the table, that's what stands the test of time.

Quote from: Voros;943661Of course there was no OSR in the 70s or 80s. Who said there was?

As for the rest, I already agreed with what you say here,  that was the point of my comparison of the OSR and punk rock: revisiting the past to find what was best and rejigging it for today.

ah I misunderstood the context. One of the things, especially around here when talking about the OSR is that a lot of us here were around back then, and even then not a lot of us completely agree on the OSR itself. Personally, while I'm fine with a lot of the OSR stuff, it's not my cuppa. Insofar that the OSR is sandbox by implicit conceit... well I'll leave that to OSR wonks on that.

I'm more of a GM advocate. I can make Chess or Monopoly a sandbox game if I wanted, heh.

Quote from: Voros;943661I know the different meanings of the term in reference to video games and tabletop. My question is where the term originated. I suspect the term, not the idea, has been borrowed from video games. Clearly many modern video games are built jankily on the attempt to replicate or imitate what can only be accomplished at this time by a good DM and their table.

That's a good question. While not expressly using the term "Sandbox" - Doug Niles pretty much nailed down all the conceits of sandbox campaign design in the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, which was as far back as the mid-80's. Not sure about the actual term in use.

Quote from: estar;943677...
I re-read Into the Labyrinth. Like early GURPS there is little in the way of advice of structuring your campaign other than most generic type. What it excels at is presenting a bunch of sensibly organized tools that are useful to run a campaign.

I am have to disagree that it was advising sandbox play. Or any other type of campaign style for that matter. The focus read like what was outlined on page 4.

While I disagree it advocates sandbox play, I do agree with this. I never ran a campaign of TFT but it overall it similiar to what I read and more importantly used in GURPS 2nd Edition. I had zero issues in using GURPS the same way I used AD&D when I switched and the focus on realism and sensible rules help me fleshed out many details of the Majestic Wilderlands.

I blogged about the origin of talking about sandbox campaign. People certainly played and refereed sandbox campaign. But nobody was talking about this as a distinct style. Certainly stuff like Steve Jackson created helped people running sandboxes but as I shown that was not the focus.

That's interesting. Maybe I don't know what "sandbox" means in the context of Majestic Wilderlands (which I know nothing about except what I've gathered from posts here - it's a D&D setting that suggests wandering around a map playing a dynamic campaign, I gather, without an orientation for some "plot" the GM has in mind).

In The Labyrinth may not have terribly elaborate discussion on how to organize a campaign, but it does describe a system for mapping everything from 1.3m tactical hexes, to 5m location ("labyrinth" or building) hexes, to 20m location (village), to 12.5km hexes (for which they give the example map and travel rules). The sample maps all have notes of prepped details including stats for local shopkeepers and personalities. So while it doesn't go into a lot of detail, and there isn't much about what we eventually learned by running games from that starting point (like all the stuff you can figure out and track to make the world consistent and have stuff going all all over), it has next to nothing to say about any other GM style, and what it does say about GM'ing (which seemed pretty elaborate in 1980, and still seems sufficient to me) is mostly about how things should make sense and be based on the GM knowing what's there and for what reason, cause and effect and so on. There are no suggestions about the ideas found on today's RPG forums about narrative mechanics, genre expectations, and giving the players what they want even if they're stupid (on the contrary, there's plenty about making the players responsible for their survival and fortunes and a few gleeful remarks about how bad choices or bad luck can mean PCs will die, and BTW TFT has no magic healing except rare & expensive healing potions which heal 1 point of damage) - most healing is 2 days rest per point.

Quote from: Skarg;943742That's interesting. Maybe I don't know what "sandbox" means in the context of Majestic Wilderlands (which I know nothing about except what I've gathered from posts here - it's a D&D setting that suggests wandering around a map playing a dynamic campaign, I gather, without an orientation for some "plot" the GM has in mind).

Since the release of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, there been a fair amount of discussion and works published about a style of campaign where the players not the referee sets the focus and direction. There are practical issues if this how the campaign to be run. Issue that are different than running adventure paths or other types of campaigns. Hence the discussion.

The referee job in a sandbox setting is to design the setting of the campaign, perform the traditional role of adjudicator as well as run the NPCs and monster, and manage the setting as the campaign unfolds. The referee creativity comes not from implementing grand stories like in an adventure path but in coming up with plausible AND interesting consequences to what the PCs do and not do.

Like so much of what goes on with tabletop roleplaying, there no hard and fast line between what a sandbox campaign versus any other type of campaign. Nor is this style of campaign "new", the discussion of it is certainly new but gamers been running campaign like this since the beginning of the hobby.

Hope this clarifies things.

Quote from: Skarg;943742In The Labyrinth may not have terribly elaborate discussion on how to organize a campaign, but it does describe a system for mapping everything from 1.3m tactical hexes, to 5m location ("labyrinth" or building) hexes, to 20m location (village), to 12.5km hexes (for which they give the example map and travel rules).

In short tools for detailing a campaign. Like the old Judges Guild Hexagon mapping system or the Hexcrawl format I used for Blackmarsh.  Mapping systems like TFT, Judges Guild, the Hexcrawl, are useful for sandbox campaign because they present an effect method of presenting and referencing a large amount of local level detail across a piece of geography. That handy if the player decide to go east instead of west. Helps with keeping things consistent and with running things by the seat of your pants until the next session.

But in of itself is neutral in regards to the type of campaign. Pazio used a hexcrawl formatted setting for the basis of their Kingmaker Adventure Path.

Quote from: Skarg;943742There are no suggestions about the ideas found on today's RPG forums about narrative mechanics, genre expectations, and giving the players what they want even if they're stupid (on the contrary, there's plenty about making the players responsible for their survival and fortunes and a few gleeful remarks about how bad choices or bad luck can mean PCs will die, and BTW TFT has no magic healing except rare & expensive healing potions which heal 1 point of damage) - most healing is 2 days rest per point.

Writing fan fiction is far more popular than tabletop roleplaying, I view storygames and the other things you pointed as stemming from that area of interest. Some of it is wish fulfillment, but some of it pretty creative in it own right. However it not the same idea as what initially propelled tabletop roleplaying forward in the 70s.

I view RPGs as something that can create an experience.  A pen and paper holodeck that can take you to interesting places, and allow you to be an interesting character doing interesting things. Similar to how you go see castles in England for the experience, travel to India and visit places like Taj Mahal, or decide to climb Mount Everest. You experience these places and the stuff you do and then tell stories about it afterwards. Steve Jackson with TFT was about giving you better tools to do that with the world of imagination.

"In the Labyrinth" is written for people who weren't wargamers first, which is why it includes a lot of stuff that Gary and Dave didn't find necessary.

Me, I've played TFT a lot and like it just fine.  It's neither better nor worse than D&D, just different.  The referee is FAR more important than the system.

Quote from: tenbones;943736ah I misunderstood the context. One of the things, especially around here when talking about the OSR is that a lot of us here were around back then, and even then not a lot of us completely agree on the OSR itself. Personally, while I'm fine with a lot of the OSR stuff, it's not my cuppa. Insofar that the OSR is sandbox by implicit conceit... well I'll leave that to OSR wonks on that.

I'm not a member of the OSR, because "renaissance" means "rebirth," and I never stopped playing this silly-ass game the way I always have in the first place.

Quote from: estar;943745Since the release of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, there been a fair amount of discussion and works published about a style of campaign where the players not the referee sets the focus and direction. There are practical issues if this how the campaign to be run. Issue that are different than running adventure paths or other types of campaigns. Hence the discussion.

The referee job in a sandbox setting is to design the setting of the campaign, perform the traditional role of adjudicator as well as run the NPCs and monster, and manage the setting as the campaign unfolds. The referee creativity comes not from implementing grand stories like in an adventure path but in coming up with plausible AND interesting consequences to what the PCs do and not do.

So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos. oh-fucking-yay.

Quote from: Omega;943758So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos. oh-fucking-yay.

The flip side of that coin is, "So the players are just passengers on the GM-Ego Train.  oh-fucking-yay."

Everyone actually playing a game as opposed to yapping on the internet, of course, is somewhere in between those extremes.

Quote from: Omega;943758So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos. oh-fucking-yay.

OK lets break this down

The referee job in a sandbox setting is

Ready because I am formatting it so it crystal clear.

• design the setting of the campaign,
• run the NPCs and monster,
• manage the setting as the campaign unfolds.
• coming up with plausible AND interesting consequences to what the PCs do and not do.

The players don't get to decide what the setting is like, nor how the NPCs and monsters are run, or how the setting is managed during the course of the campaign. And above all what the consequences are to their actions. The referee is anything but a vend-bot.

Quote from: CRKrueger;943759The flip side of that coin is, "So the players are just passengers on the GM-Ego Train.  oh-fucking-yay."

Everyone actually playing a game as opposed to yapping on the internet, of course, is somewhere in between those extremes.

Exactly. I really hate these two extremes. The ultra-railroad and the DM vend-bot. Right up there with "the DM is the Enemy" and "the DM is Monty Haul".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;943754I'm not a member of the OSR, because "renaissance" means "rebirth," and I never stopped playing this silly-ass game the way I always have in the first place.

Very salient distinction. That's probably why I'm not so enamored with the OSR, but not because I still play using "old school rules" - but because what I want out of my games don't require any particular version of D&D to satisfy those needs. I play old-school. I don't use old-school systems for any particular reason.

Quote from: Omega;943762Exactly. I really hate these two extremes. The ultra-railroad and the DM vend-bot. Right up there with "the DM is the Enemy" and "the DM is Monty Haul".

Which is why I advocate that a good sandbox has the full-monty of methods within it. And a good sandbox GM's uses those methods/tools as needed for the benefit of the players, which incentivises them against GM-as-enemy, which allows the GM to focus his attention on the world-at-large to give space for the eventual consequences of the PC's actions. This includes using the NPC's and world-in-motion to keep the PC's active either by incentives, feeding player-induced interest, or GM-manufactured situations relating to all of the above beyond what the PC's know.

It's a balancing act. Getting to that sweet-spot and maintaining it is the goal.