TheRPGSite

In this video I talk about some important terms used in tabletop RPGs (like D&D) that describe good or bad DMing practices, which are worth understanding to know the right way to run a game.

I often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Quote from: BadApple on February 23, 2025, 12:48:58 PMI often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Nope. Different groups need different amounts of direction before they get some momentum going.

For some, you can start them in some random town and they'll organize and figure out something to do. Others need a specific job or rumor to start out, but will otherwise self-direct. Some need an actual sponsor NPC they can report to because while they're on task when assigned one, they won't take the initiative to pick a task for themselves.

And this isn't even consistent. Sometimes you'll have a random element a normally passive group latches onto, other times that one player who's the glue for keeping the party on task misses a session and the entire group mires down to where they spend an hour of real life and in-game time arguing over whether to set up camp in the tree line for concealment or against the rocky outcropping that would limit the approaches to the camp... and there wasn't even going to be a nighttime event initially... except they spent so much time arguing about it loudly enough I determined something nearby actually noticed them when it otherwise wouldn't have and attacked them while in the open before camp had even been made.

In short, people are people and that means they're subject to a lot of variables that affect how they play and as a GM you can, at best, notice and prepare for trends, but need to often improvise the specifics.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 23, 2025, 01:21:44 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 23, 2025, 12:48:58 PMI often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Nope. Different groups need different amounts of direction before they get some momentum going.

Yes, exactly. I think that's why Lost Mines of Phandelivn starts with a railroad (road attack, goblin caves) and then you get to the village and its more sand-boxy. Shame WotC went for railroads for so many other 5E adventures.

Some peoples definition of "railroading" is so fucked up there is just no way to ever game with them.

Either they stretch it to effectively mean "everything on earth".
Theres a barrier preventing leaving the area. "You filthy railroader!"
The room has only one exit. "This is for the worst!"
DM asks the group what module they want to play through. "The Monster!!!!!"
ad nausium.

Or they distort it to suit some crackhead agenda. Storygamers will bitch incessantly about it. But the minute they gain control they commit ten times worse than what they were accusing.

Instead of addressing actual railroading problems.

Every game needs some kind of structure, or you risk choice paralysis.
I ran a mercenaries campaign with Starfinder a few years ago. The basic structure was that they get job offers from an organization called Merc.Net. The better they do, the more lucrative and dangerous the job offers. They had the freedom on which jobs to take, or if they wanted to follow up on interesting leads of their own found during the mercenary contract missions.
It was running very well until Covid shut everything down. :(

Running a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

How so?

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

Well, sometimes they do.  Often it boils down to a single player who is the one who gets the rest of the group going.  It becomes really apparent when that one player misses a session and the group spends the whole session floundering around aimlessly arguing about nothing and doing nothing.  I have run campaigns where I had the misfortune of not having that one motivating player.  I was running Heritage of Hastur on Roll20.  In the first session, the character attend a performance of The King in Yellow in London and strange things happen.  After that, they get a clue that points to an insane asylum.  The next session was mostly them doing research in London.  Exhaustive research.  For 4 hours of game time.  They found out everything in about 2 hours and I told them so.  Then the next session happened.  Did they go to the asylum?  No.  They just continued to mill around in London.  By this point, I was flailing around trying to find some way of making this the least bit interesting or scary.  Then another session went by and they continued to mill around in London while I flailed around and attempted to get them going.  At that point, I just gave up and ended the campaign.  I am convinced that they would not have actually gone anywhere or done anything unless I made them.  I mean something along the lines of

Me: You go to asylum now.
Player: Wait, I want to...
Me: You are at the asylum now.  What are you doing?

Something really hamhanded like that. 

Quotes were broken in this post and I couldn't figure out how to fix it, sorry.

It depends on what you mean by participate in the game.  They did show up.  They did roleplay.  They were participating in the game in a sense.  There was just no forward movement at all.  A big chunk of the third session was them arguing about what supplies they should get  For an hour drive through the British countryside near London.  I remember them arguing about whether they should bring tents and supplies like they were going on an expedition to Borneo or something.    In the end, they decided against it.  I have rarely seen a group spend so much time and energy doing so little.  They argued about whether to buy some stuff and then didn't buy.  If that's providing structure, they throwing a giant pile of building supplies on the ground is building a house.  Sometimes the players will provide structure and sometimes, well, they won't.

Yes, if your players choose not to participate in the game, there won't be much of a game. This is true no matter what sort of game it is.

If a player isn't making any decisions, railroading him won't make any difference. He can still be replaced by a dice rolling bot.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 05:18:06 AMMe: You go to asylum now.
Player: Wait, I want to...
Me: You are at the asylum now.  What are you doing?

Something really hamhanded like that.

I don't follow you. It looks like your player was about to inform you of a decision he wanted to make. Why interrupt him?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2025, 04:28:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

How so?

By such methods as creating characters (their own and others), making decisions, pursuing goals, affecting the world, and causing or resolving conflicts.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 05:47:56 AMI don't follow you. It looks like your player was about to inform you of a decision he wanted to make. Why interrupt him?

Apparently, I wasn't clear about what the players had been doing for three sessions.  It would have been something like "I want to do some more library research" two sessions after I told them bluntly that they had found everything that there was to find.  That's what they did for twelve hours.
 

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:11:41 AMBy such methods as creating characters (their own and others), making decisions, pursuing goals, affecting the world, and causing or resolving conflicts.

My point is that some players just don't do those things.  As I said before, it often boils down to one player who actually does that stuff.  If that person is absent, that stuff doesn't happen.  The players don't make decisions or pursue goals.  They fiddle around and argue about nothing.  They spend what seems like forever arguing about how they are going to get from London to Basildon when they have cars.  This seriously happened.  There is a certain segment of players that drag the game to a complete halt like this repeatedly unless there is another player there to get the group going or I just force them along. 

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 05:47:56 AMYes, if your players choose not to participate in the game, there won't be much of a game. This is true no matter what sort of game it is.

If a player isn't making any decisions, railroading him won't make any difference. He can still be replaced by a dice rolling bot.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 05:18:06 AMMe: You go to asylum now.
Player: Wait, I want to...
Me: You are at the asylum now.  What are you doing?

Something really hamhanded like that.

I don't follow you. It looks like your player was about to inform you of a decision he wanted to make. Why interrupt him?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2025, 04:28:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

How so?

By such methods as creating characters (their own and others), making decisions, pursuing goals, affecting the world, and causing or resolving conflicts.

That's not a structure though. Structure is in how the game presents choices and goals to the players.

The players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

or they don't

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

What goals and what choices?

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.

Anyway, I agree with BadApple about how to start a game. You setup some obvious railroady crap just to get it going and give enough hooks for the players to become engaged, then after that let it play out organically. Typically, players will see all sorts of non-existent subplots and machinations that you clearly did not put there but can appropriate and flesh out to keep them interested. It is always easier to run a smooth game when the players are dictating what direction to go than forcing them to do anything because otherwise you might as well be just reading them a story.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.

As a GM I am not, though, obliged to actually run their third session of "lets ignore the plot hooks, go to the night club, sing kereoke, and people watch the night away."

Which happened... only it was five sessions before I completely gave up. Turns out some people crave the club life as much as the drinks they can no longer have. Another player was using it as an excuse to search fashion sites for what her PC was wearing to the nightclub that night. The third was at the table because he wanted the company.

I am not required to spend four hours a week indulging that.

There's a tacit agreement between players and GMs that the players will at least try to engage the plot hooks the GM dangles for them. If you disagree, that's fine, but you're also not welcome in my games.

That was a "campaign" with zero movers. I already shared my story where there was just one mover and how the game crashed out when they were absent.

I've found that you can train at least some passive players to be more active.  The trick that works best is to start a game with obvious short-term goals--almost pure railroad--then introduce mutually exclusive short-term goals.

I've done it very gently and I've done it hardcore.  Depends on the players.  Start them with 1, then have 2 mutually exclusive with an obvious soft landing for the road not taken, so that they know if they wanted that goal met, they had to choose it when it was presented.  Haul the princess out of the dungeon or haul the treasure, you can't do both and live, since it slows you down to much.  Players start getting creative and active trying to come up with ways to do both--and sometimes they even do for awhile.  Ratchet up until they can't.  Now they have to choose, and choices matter. 

After that sinks in, hit them with 5, 6, 7, or more hooks, some mutually exclusive, some not, not at all obvious which is which. Hmm, some investigation might be in order, but if they want to flounder around and accomplish none of them, that's a viable option. If being nice, doesn't hurt to make one of the hooks a "get info" mini-quest. 

Build in some down-time, but don't have hooks that stretch out.  Yeah, you get to rest up for a couple of months with no obvious hooks--time can pass quickly if the players are all passive.  Then things heat up again all at once.

If you are lucky, it's at this point that 1 or 2 of them have become semi-active players.  They are trying to get ahead of things. They start using that downtime to find something to prepare them for the next flurry. Meanwhile, there are still things happening that they can't control, world is very much in motion, and the rest of the group is at least willing to go along with the active players.  (Sometimes, the active players need the GM's help to stop the nonsense.)

Quote from: BadApple on February 23, 2025, 12:48:58 PMI often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Not In my experience, if you have a "true" sandbox without any direction, with something vague like "You've arrived in town, what do you want to do?" players will feel completely lost and unsure how to begin. You need some hooks or plots (which are pretty much the same thing, in my opinion); what you don't need is a strictly linear story. Even a very old-school "Here's a giant dungeon ready for you to explore" serves as a plot hook.

I'm of the mindset that D&D needs SOME kind of plot (hook, etc) or you have absolutely nothing, just players muddling around confused, or, worse IMHO, you're just rolling on random tables.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 08:04:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.

Yeah. The GM comes up with whatever scenarios exist in the world, and the characters react to them.
I went through a period where I was so afraid of railroading that I thought myself into a corner and couldn't figure out how to get an adventure started. The way out of that corner is to realize that the characters can make all the decisions they want, but they have to have some kind of context to make those decisions from.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2025, 10:16:53 AM

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 08:04:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.

Yeah. The GM comes up with whatever scenarios exist in the world, and the characters react to them.
I went through a period where I was so afraid of railroading that I thought myself into a corner and couldn't figure out how to get an adventure started. The way out of that corner is to realize that the characters can make all the decisions they want, but they have to have some kind of context to make those decisions from.

That's something important. I think too many people talk about a "sandbox" as though they mean there is nothing. You drop the players in a town and then wing everything else. There are no hooks, no "quests", no dungeon that can be a place to go just "What do you want to do today?" which IMHO is just stupid and nonsensical. Unlike a videogame you can't just go up to every NPC you meet and talk to them hoping they give some "clue".

I've noticed that some players just aren't ready for a sandbox, either because they're too new to the hobby or because they're experienced and too used to being railroaded. Anyone who plays modules regularly, for example.

It's also more difficult if the player characters aren't interested in being mercenaries or looking for treasure as a goal, or picking their own goals. If the players want to be good guys, then that usually means they'll need some kind of goal in mind that either involves following someone else's orders, or a specific quest tied to a specific location and sequence of events. If the campaign involves belonging to a faction like a military, it's going to be mission-based.

I really like the OSR sandbox model overall and I try to do it as much as I can, but I have to say that it's somewhat tied to the other D&D concepts like adventuring for hire, a premodern economy, and premodern methods of travel. For example, if you're doing a science fiction game with instant faster than light travel and an entire galaxy open, it's going to be difficult doing a traditional hexcrawl or letting the players just wander aimlessly into trouble.

Some settings also just lend themselves more to a less sandboxy style.

Superheroes, for example, are typically more reactive than proactive. If the GM isn't providing regular "Trouble! In the City!" they're doing superheroes wrong.

Indeed, if I know a particular group tends to be more passive, I'll often recommend we play a superhero campaign precisely because they won't have to make nearly as many "what do we do next?" sort of decisions. The proactive ones start patrolling or investigating, but the "supervillain rampage on 5th and Madison" alert hits even the most passive PC.

Even a typical "sword & sorcery" game, in my experience, has always had some kind of hook. It's never just randomly wandering into something. For example, Conan hears about the Tower of the Elephant and wants to rob the giant jewel. Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser acquire (IIRC Mouser actually stole it) a map to the House of Angargni that's rumored to be full of treasure and go there. They aren't "Conan was randomly wandering the road out of Zamora when..."

I think that's part of why my preferred mix is "episodic" style (anthology-style one might call it). each adventure has a hook, but they aren't necessarily related, and each adventure the PCs might be in a completely different area, the reason why they've journeyed there largely left as filler (although usually involving some tale of riches). SOME adventures might be linked together as a two or three-part "miniseries", and future adventures might have callbacks to previous ones (recurring villain, something done previously comes back to bite the PCs, and so on) but what you basically have is a collection of short stories featuring the same protagonists, in the vein of Conan/Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser/Kothar/etc.

A paladin need not be played lawful stupid. A sandbox GM need not run a game hook stupid.

Having hooks doesn't stop a thing being a sandbox.  Forcing hooks does.  Or players only chasing hooks turns it into a de facto non-sandbox. The mere existence of a hook is merely one other aspect of the setting.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 24, 2025, 11:14:13 AMA paladin need not be played lawful stupid. A sandbox GM need not run a game hook stupid.

Having hooks doesn't stop a thing being a sandbox.  Forcing hooks does.  Or players only chasing hooks turns it into a de facto non-sandbox. The mere existence of a hook is merely one other aspect of the setting.

EXACTLY. Too many people I've talked to think having any sort of "hook" means it's not a sandbox. Although IMHO if players are always ignoring hooks, they're just being jackasses and wasting the DM's time.

Quote from: Nobleshield on February 24, 2025, 10:58:54 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2025, 10:16:53 AM

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 08:04:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.

Yeah. The GM comes up with whatever scenarios exist in the world, and the characters react to them.
I went through a period where I was so afraid of railroading that I thought myself into a corner and couldn't figure out how to get an adventure started. The way out of that corner is to realize that the characters can make all the decisions they want, but they have to have some kind of context to make those decisions from.

That's something important. I think too many people talk about a "sandbox" as though they mean there is nothing. You drop the players in a town and then wing everything else. There are no hooks, no "quests", no dungeon that can be a place to go just "What do you want to do today?" which IMHO is just stupid and nonsensical. Unlike a videogame you can't just go up to every NPC you meet and talk to them hoping they give some "clue".

Actually, my complaint is that some groups in a sandbox won't pursue the hooks and quests even if there's neon sign hanging over them saying "Quest HERE!"

They will literally just head to the bar, ignore the hooded figure offering them a treasure map and the two guards yakking about how a caravan loaded with valuables on the kingsroad was struck by bandits not an hour from the town gates, and spend the entire session wanting detailed descriptions of the barmaids and clientele, holding drinking contests, making perform checks to entertain the room, playing darts and essentially anything but engaging with the hooks for an entire session (then do it again for the next session, and the one after that.

Or the one active player who convinces the passive ones that going on adventures is lame and they should instead leverage their class abilities to make money in town with no risk of life and limb... and then gets positively passive aggressive when their endeavor hits the slightest snag or complication.

Some groups just need a railroad... or at least a boss who makes them do work or some situation where it's super obvious what needs to be done (ex. the campaign begins with the party all washed up on the shore of a monster-haunted island after a shipwreck... find water, food, shelter and eventually a way off the island while surviving the monsters... no bars to frequent, no "let's make money in town"... survive the island or don't).

Quote from: Nobleshield on February 24, 2025, 11:15:24 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 24, 2025, 11:14:13 AMA paladin need not be played lawful stupid. A sandbox GM need not run a game hook stupid.

Having hooks doesn't stop a thing being a sandbox.  Forcing hooks does.  Or players only chasing hooks turns it into a de facto non-sandbox. The mere existence of a hook is merely one other aspect of the setting.

EXACTLY. Too many people I've talked to think having any sort of "hook" means it's not a sandbox. Although IMHO if players are always ignoring hooks, they're just being jackasses and wasting the DM's time.

Well, if you signed up for a sandbox, ignoring most hooks is fine--provided that you then actively pursue something else worth spending game time on. 

My hooks will keep, if not this go around, then next time I run another campaign for more passive players. If the players are coming in session after session and effectively generating their own hooks, then great.  That's one less thing I need to prepare.  I'll have a couple in my back pocket just in case everyone shows up tired and need a little prod to get motivated.  It happens.  And I'll still have a few appear from time to time to show that other stuff is happening in the world.  But I'm not going to spray them out there if they aren't needed.

The biggest thing I run into with this hybrid approach is making sure that I don't get lazy and that the players don't either.  That's how I started the mutually exclusive hook thing.  Basically, if the players want to drive things hard, I'll let them set the pace.  If they want to muck around, the world will drive things hard.  I'm fine either way, but we aren't going to sit around for a whole session navel-gazing.

Greetings!

I know "Sandboxes" are the happy style to do OSR gaming, and "Railroading" is some terrible, horrible sin...

I hate to be a bit contrarian, because they annoy me greatly, but, honestly, it must be said--

Some players LIKE RAILROADS.

Some players NEED RAILROADS.

As Yosemitemike discussed, and Steve Mitchell, well, it is not uncommon to have otherwise circle-jerking players. To call them unmotivated may be inaccurate, and not fair. They just have different priorities than you.

Now, hold on. They can be the same priorities, but ordered and weighted differently, from you. That is probably true of every player, to be honest. But by degree, the further out-ordered priorities of a player from you, while generally shared, can still present a distinctive "problem."

So, different players actually express and pursue their priorities in various ways. That isn't always straight-away following plot hooks layed out for them. *laughing*

Sometimes, the DM must simply say, "Yes, you have everything, you have arrived at the entrance to the dungeon!"

And proceed from there.

I have one player that can manage to turn an assumed short trip to the stable to get the pack mules ready to go, into an adventure. *Laughing* Them having a smoke on the porch or veranda of the Inn they are staying at can be dangerous. They are the kind of player that is hyper-aware and constantly intrigued by seducing any good looking sexy treat they lay eyes on, or provoking someone into a brawl, or on their own concocting some fevered scheme or evil plot they believe the villains are doing--and get the government swept up into the hysteria. If you let them, these people can start a revolution in a weekend.

In contrast to that player though, there are others that just are not that imaginative. The setting, the "Journey" such as it is, has less appeal for them. They want to virtually instantly be at the "Destination."

"Are we there yet?"

They want to be wherever they need to be, to get killing, and getting that booty.

There are no doubt degrees of differences for these kinds of players, and more types besides.

As others have shown, yeah, there ARE players that are also very content to just hang out at the tavern or go shopping, or chat with their girlfriend about what young nobleman they should hit up and bang.

I have some players like that, too. The adventure, and the dungeon, that's all fine and good. What they really get excited about though is going shopping at the new upscale district in the city, attending a masquerade ball, or having a rustic playtime in the happy forest with some elves. *Laughing*

Yes, dealing with different player types can be challenging, and requires a mix of approaches and tools by the DM. Just expecting everyone to be totally dungeon-focused, sandbox focused, eh. Yeah, that is nice, but rather ideal. Your group can easily include other Player Types that you must deal with in various ways.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 24, 2025, 11:32:46 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on February 24, 2025, 10:58:54 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2025, 10:16:53 AM

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 08:04:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.

Yeah. The GM comes up with whatever scenarios exist in the world, and the characters react to them.
I went through a period where I was so afraid of railroading that I thought myself into a corner and couldn't figure out how to get an adventure started. The way out of that corner is to realize that the characters can make all the decisions they want, but they have to have some kind of context to make those decisions from.

That's something important. I think too many people talk about a "sandbox" as though they mean there is nothing. You drop the players in a town and then wing everything else. There are no hooks, no "quests", no dungeon that can be a place to go just "What do you want to do today?" which IMHO is just stupid and nonsensical. Unlike a videogame you can't just go up to every NPC you meet and talk to them hoping they give some "clue".

Actually, my complaint is that some groups in a sandbox won't pursue the hooks and quests even if there's neon sign hanging over them saying "Quest HERE!"

They will literally just head to the bar, ignore the hooded figure offering them a treasure map and the two guards yakking about how a caravan loaded with valuables on the kingsroad was struck by bandits not an hour from the town gates, and spend the entire session wanting detailed descriptions of the barmaids and clientele, holding drinking contests, making perform checks to entertain the room, playing darts and essentially anything but engaging with the hooks for an entire session (then do it again for the next session, and the one after that.

Or the one active player who convinces the passive ones that going on adventures is lame and they should instead leverage their class abilities to make money in town with no risk of life and limb... and then gets positively passive aggressive when their endeavor hits the slightest snag or complication.

Some groups just need a railroad... or at least a boss who makes them do work or some situation where it's super obvious what needs to be done (ex. the campaign begins with the party all washed up on the shore of a monster-haunted island after a shipwreck... find water, food, shelter and eventually a way off the island while surviving the monsters... no bars to frequent, no "let's make money in town"... survive the island or don't).

It sounds like those types of players you're describing wouldn't even engage with a railroad. Though I think we've drifted from the definition of a railroad.

A railroad is "when the GM negates player choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome". (Googled dat. Wanted a clear definition and it wasn't coming to me.)

Linear adventures are not railroads, and telling the players "Here's the adventure, ya doinks!" isn't a railroad.

(reposting my youtube comment) I tend to do sandbox for most of my fantasy and wuxia campaigns, and monster of the week for horror (though I have run horror sandboxes too). I think sandbox is one of those styles that can take time to develop the skill set for, and you have to drop some of the guardrails people are accustomed to in order to develop those skills. Adaptability I think is really the crucial thing: being able to not set your own expectations, and realize the potential of the direction things unexpectedly go. And I agree having tools like random generators is always very helpful. There is a synergy that arises when you have those random tools and the setting interacting. Another key thing is operating through NPCs with clear goals. I think a lot of GMs are trained to think in terms of events, or scenes. But a sandbox is more character driven (both on the PC side, but also on the NPC and organizations side). Getting into the mindset of "King Meteor Hammer wants to set up an ambush for the party with his men", versus "An ambush occurs at the Green Owl Inn"is kind of crucial (King Meteor Hammer may try to stage his ambush at the inn, but he is a moving piece on the board just like the PCs and things may not happen the way he wants depending on what actions the PCs take)

Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2025, 12:06:08 PMI hate to be a bit contrarian, because they annoy me greatly, but, honestly, it must be said--

Some players LIKE RAILROADS.

Some players NEED RAILROADS.

What I found is that some players, some groups, rather be under orders, be part of a organization that has some structure.

Which is fine by me. Doesn't make anything I do less of a Sandbox campaign. If at some point they wish no longer be part of said organization or defy orders they have that choice. Now if they are not smart about it then there may be unpleasant consequences.

I have an issue with only two types of players, and both are defined by what they do out of the game, not how they act as their characters in-game.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2025, 01:13:43 PMIt sounds like those types of players you're describing wouldn't even engage with a railroad. Though I think we've drifted from the definition of a railroad.

A railroad is "when the GM negates player choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome". (Googled dat. Wanted a clear definition and it wasn't coming to me.)

Linear adventures are not railroads, and telling the players "Here's the adventure, ya doinks!" isn't a railroad.

I agree with this.

I'll tell you what I find baffling are the idea that running linear adventures is no different than running Sandbox. I'm saying this in a specific way for the reasons I've been accused of being a Sandbox-elitist for simply saying that Sandbox campaigns require more skill to pull off than a linear adventure.

I've never said linear adventures are shit. Though they do exist - D&D is rife with them. I'm saying that a good Sandbox transcends them and can include them. But the prosecution of running what I consider a good Sandbox campaign requires more skill to pull off.

This is not the same thing as running one-shots, or episodic linear adventures, or convention games - all of which can cross-pollinate at various junctures. But running a proper Sandbox has all the tools requires to run all of those variations of game, but those variations do *not* have all the tools required to run a Sandbox.

Largely because there is no need for those tools. This is precisely why I think it's developmental, not simply a mode anyone can reliably dive into with the same assumptions of "success". That is squarely a GMing choice.

The *player* side of this, which everyone seems to be talking about now, is a different matter. I find this to be something a Sandbox GM needs to factor in to the best of their ability. I mean some GM's might be playing with new players, or they may not even be aware of the nature of their players yet.

Players that are passive, for me, are the hardest to deal with for me since I'm a "problem solver" by nature. I'm constantly looking for ways to engage those passive players - I'll generate content for them, I'll engage with roleplaying repeatedly, I'll do whatever it takes to pull them in. I do this with all my players, but when I see someone is not engaging I'll go extra-hard to pull them in. And despite my efforts, you start to realize they're there for different reasons. Then I have to let them go.

I can handle murder-hoboing power-gamers, I can handle assholes that are adversarial and believe they're playing against me, I can handle players that think they know all the lore of an established setting who think they have some kind of advantage because "they read the book." But players that are passively standing around waiting to be told what to do at all times because they're really playing with you and the group for different reasons - those are the worst.

This doesn't mean I don't try to pull out all the stops for them. But at some point, my other players correctly say "Dude how much time are we going to waste trying to engage with player <X> when we all know it will 1) go nowhere 2) blow up in our collective faces?

I'm perfectly fine with players not going after "hooks". That is a choice. The world moves on. I am slightly embarrassed by the amount of stuff I've done for such players. Case in point - I had this player who was notoriously useless. He *imagined* himself as an active player that was very social, and would always try to play the "smooth-talking scoundrel." The problem was he was HORRIBLE at it, when he'd do it at all. The weird part is when we're out of game, he was quite social and chatty, and could talk about all kinds of stuff. But when gametime happened, he would vaporlock tighter than an astronauts asshole who just got tossed out into the big black. He never did *anything* in the game someone didn't have to order him to do. Didn't engage with any NPC's that were logistically connected to him - NPC friends, family, rivals, significant others, he treated them all the same. All his characters were played the same, when played at all. He used to the same cheesy pathetic pseudo-accent, which would drop after first half-hour of the session. He'd tell me he *really* wanted to play <X> - a swordsman that was part of this special school of fighting (ala Zorro). So I'm like, COOL! I then spend my time writing up a 10-page writeup on not just his school, but half a dozen other swordfighting schools that are rivals to his. I create a secret network of locations in the region where they have duels and pit-fights. I make a host of NPC's that flesh it all out, including writeups on the various styles of fighting, their benefits and how to learn them. Mind you, other PC's and NPC's can now learn them too. Effectively I create a whole sub-culture for him to engage with and nestle in with his PC. What happens? He actively ignores all of it.

Now, that's *fine* because it means it's there for anyone else to interact with - but the time/effort ratio on top of all the stuff I do for the game and the players that *do show up to play*, starts to be noticeable to me and the others. Those kinds of players are vampires for GM's like me.

To a man, every player like this has been a player that comes from playing linear adventures, and railroads from other GM's that don't know anything, they hear about my game through others, show up and suddenly when faced with *actual* choice, when faced with actual roleplaying options, and freedom to do what they want, make what they want within context, they lock up. I've *never* had a player that comes from actual Sandbox campaigns come into games at my table and not felt perfectly at home. It's *always* the nobs that come from the linear gaming side. And what happens is we have to "train them up". I'm not shitting on linear adventures - I'm saying again, it's developmental.

One thing I do is something I and others call World in Motion. Namely, that the setting has a life of its own, and events will continue to unfold independently outside of what the players as their characters do impact.

In the case of passive players, this means that, eventually, life will catch up to them. When it does, they will have to make choices whether they want to or not.

Prior to a campaign starting I will make up notes and a timeline of what could be happening in the absence the players doing anything.

I don't have any particular expertise in handling Mythos-related campaigns in the 20th/21st century. I can say for the settings I do run, like my Majestic Wilderlands, Middle Earth, Superheroes, and the Third Imperium. This will eventually result in events directly impacting the circumstances of the players in which choices have to be made.

And I had groups take an interest at that point, and I had groups that still ignored them mostly by uprooting themselves to another place outside of what happened. Note the last group that did that were a bunch of hack-n-slashers uninterested in politics.

I am happy with either outcome and the ones in between. Yes, I put in prep, setting the stage, so to speak. But I find it endlessly fascinating to see how the players navigate it, either proactively or passively. I long given up any idea of how a campaign ought to go. Specific character actions under specific circumstances sure I got plenty of opinions about. That is what refereeing is about to me. But as far as goals and plans, that is up to the players, including the possibility they don't have any goals or plans.

I learned long ago that the ones that cause problems are a result of out-of-game issues; their bad roleplaying was the symptom, not the cause.

Yep this is very much like me. I try to be as complete as possible for the game I'm running, but I know there's *always* something the players want I didn't consider... but after all these years, I'm pretty much ready for 98% of everything.

The world *is* in motion. I know the general motivations of NPC's high and low, I know of possible conflicts that are brewing, and at Chargen I plug everyone's ideas into the mix, re-capitulate whatever we all agree on, then let'er rip. I don't lean super-heavy on random generators, but I *always* use them at some point. I'm generally pretty nimble of mind to make some shit up on the spot to keep things interesting.

But the PC's are the stars of the show, even when they choose to do what they want, and shit goes south in some other part of the sandbox because of it. That just becomes more conflict to deal with later. And *conflict is good* for Sandbox gaming.

Quote from: BadApple on February 23, 2025, 12:48:58 PMI often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Not necessarily. An "introductory adventure" often requires a kind of fait-accomplit on the part of the DM explaining why the group is together in the first place, for example. Likewise, on a meta level if you are starting a new game with players not experienced with that game, the first session may serve as an introduction of how the rules work, what the world is like, etc to give them footing as to how the campaign is expected to go.

Deleted as I don't really know what point I was trying to make and I can't find a delete post option.

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 08:04:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.

Anyway, I agree with BadApple about how to start a game. You setup some obvious railroady crap just to get it going and give enough hooks for the players to become engaged, then after that let it play out organically. Typically, players will see all sorts of non-existent subplots and machinations that you clearly did not put there but can appropriate and flesh out to keep them interested. It is always easier to run a smooth game when the players are dictating what direction to go than forcing them to do anything because otherwise you might as well be just reading them a story.

The setting is created by the GM and players working together.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 08, 2025, 01:44:12 PMThe setting is created by the GM and players working together.

I don't like this.  I don't want to co-build a setting.

I spend weeks readying a game for players; writing up fleshed out NPCs, setting up locations, sorting out what loot goes where and why it's there, factions and conflicts, and fleshing out a history.  I also love to build in a big treasure by making the whole sandbox a sort of combination lock.  All of this is for the players to discover in game and then they can decide how they want to influence it.  Most players love exploring and making discoveries and I like to give that experience to them.

If I'm building a setting with my players, then I don't get to build in my secrets and plots (faction plots, not story plots) in a way that's natural to the setting.  I want to give my players the best game I can and for me a large part of that is giving them a setting that's internally consistent so that everything else I do works better.

What do you think prevents you from putting secrets in the setting? I didn't say the players create everything. Nor does this prevent the setting from being consistent.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 08, 2025, 01:44:12 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 24, 2025, 08:04:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on February 24, 2025, 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

[/quote

Anyway, I agree with BadApple about how to start a game. You setup some obvious railroady crap just to get it going and give enough hooks for the players to become engaged, then after that let it play out organically. Typically, players will see all sorts of non-existent subplots and machinations that you clearly did not put there but can appropriate and flesh out to keep them interested. It is always easier to run a smooth game when the players are dictating what direction to go than forcing them to do anything because otherwise you might as well be just reading them a story.

The setting is created by the GM and players working together.

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.



The players have ZERO input on how the game world is set up or created. I have never heard nor seen such a thing.

Player characters interact with the game world I made. That's it. If they want to change something, it has to be through their interaction with the game world.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 13, 2025, 11:42:32 AMWhat do you think prevents you from putting secrets in the setting? I didn't say the players create everything. Nor does this prevent the setting from being consistent.

It eliminates the DM to Player dichotomy. By allowing players input into how the game setting is created, it weakens DM fiat.

An RPG is a role paying GAME. Not storytelling. You want to tell a story, go write a book.

Without a clear distinction between DM and player, rules arbitration becomes murky and the DM can't perform one of his primary functions: referee.

Not only is it his role to create a game world, but it's just as important for him to act as rules interpreter and arbiter of said rules.

There is no rules by committee, nor game world by committee.

Anything else just becomes shitty community theater, or like Critical Role.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:41:00 PMThe players have ZERO input on how the game world is set up or created. I have never heard nor seen such a thing.

I've seen it tried a few times, never with impressive results. In order for it to work at all you need players who actually like worldbuilding and to be playing in either a very generic or completely kitchen sink setting. Anything with a remotely unique tone/theme will immediately lose it once you have five random yahoos throwing in ideas.

I had the most experience of this in a Dungeon World campaign, which has a degree of player-authored-setting written into the rules. The GM tried to lean into it, let people pick any class they could find on the internet and gave ample opportunities for the players to add to the worldbuileding. I found it mildly fun for a while, but then I'm a career GM, so I like that kind of thing. Ultimately the GM abandoned the campaign precisely because he got frustrated with what an inconsistent mess the setting had become.

Every time I've tried to open up some elements of setting creation to my players I've gotten crickets in response. Even implied settings they don't want to engage with. When I was going to run Hot Springs Island, I said to my players "just assume everything beyond the islands is a typical D&D world. You can invent whatever place you want for your characters to come from, as long as it fits into that".

The response?

"Can you just pick a published setting to put it in?"

One of the main reasons I play RPGs, play video games, or read books is that I love to explore.  I want to go places and see what's there.  Learn about the history and the culture.  Maybe kill something and take its stuff while I'm there.  Creating the setting with the DM puts the kebosh on that for me as a player.  I already know what's there so exploration is pointless, and no fun.  Co-creation seems like it would be something that would be more appropriate in the realm of collaborative storytelling.  Thinking about it, co-creation in RPGs seems like a long step towards storygaming.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 14, 2025, 05:52:50 AMOne of the main reasons I play RPGs, play video games, or read books is that I love to explore.  I want to go places and see what's there.  Learn about the history and the culture.  Maybe kill something and take its stuff while I'm there.  Creating the setting with the DM puts the kebosh on that for me as a player.  I already know what's there so exploration is pointless, and no fun.  Co-creation seems like it would be something that would be more appropriate in the realm of collaborative storytelling.  Thinking about it, co-creation in RPGs seems like a long step towards storygaming.

In my experience, even in worlds with lots of detail already created, like Star Wars or Middle Earth or real-world history, there's still room for lots of exploration. I might already know plenty about those settings in general, but it's easy to explore new material created by a given creator.

In the same way, for example, my last D&D setting was one that I co-created with my son Milo. We discussed jointly a lot of high-level things like gods, races, language, and so forth. But he wouldn't know anything about an adventure that I made in the setting, and I wouldn't know anything about an adventure he created. Almost all of the stuff we co-created is public to all players.

I've played in a number of co-created and/or rotating-GM games, and exploration was a big part of adventures in all of them.


EDITED TO ADD: This isn't the standard for my games. In most of them I'm the traditional world-creator. As a minor caveat, even in traditional games, it's common for players to have a hand in bits of background related to their character - like who their character's family is or what their hometown is like. I'm not sure what JoannaGeist is driving at in saying that the setting is created by GM and players. To JoannaGeist - it would be better to unpack more what you're talking about instead of zippy one-liners.

I've had players expand in-game lore through collaborative discussions of their characters, but generally unless it's FATE or something I'd assume most games function like mine in that the DM has to approve said expansions to their world.

Some of this comes down to GMs getting frustrated that PCs aren't noticing the quest hooks they painstakingly set up.

Players getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible. It gets to degrees of worse depending on how much power the players get.

The ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

I agree about 99% of the time, EXCEPT in certain instances. I played in a pretty extensive sandbox campaign for several years and one of the characters was a self-professed scholar. The DM had the world worked out in fair detail, but the PC would sometimes come to conclusions and spout "history" to explain a situation. A lot of times this would be worked into the actual history of the world, sometimes it wouldn't, depending on the DMs whim. So I think things like, "Ahhh yes, I remember Sir Bob, his uncle Herbert wore foppish yellow hats when hunting wolves" is the sort of thing that adds flavor to the game and is essentially inconsequential; it also saves the DM from having to come up with backstories for some NPCs. I am terrible with names, so I usually let my players decide on them if they're inclined, for instance.

So, it CAN be a good thing if the players have total buy-in to the DMs world and understand what he's trying to do. Alas, a lot of players are just jackasses who would use said opportunities to fuck everything up.

The real problem is that too many people have completely fucked up ideas of what "railroading" even is.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMIt eliminates the DM to Player dichotomy. By allowing players input into how the game setting is created, it weakens DM fiat.

Explain how it does this. My "fiat" hasn't been weakened in my current game at all.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMAn RPG is a role paying GAME. Not storytelling. You want to tell a story, go write a book.

I have not said anything to the contrary. "Players contribute to the game's setting" and "Players play in the game" do not contradict each other.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMWithout a clear distinction between DM and player, rules arbitration becomes murky and the DM can't perform one of his primary functions: referee.

The distinction remains clear after the players contribute elements to the setting.
Rules arbitration is exactly the same whether the players put things in the world or not. The resolution mechanics are unchanged. I'm not prevented from adjudicating in any way.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMNot only is it his role to create a game world, but it's just as important for him to act as rules interpreter and arbiter of said rules.
There is no rules by committee, nor game world by committee.

The roles of participants in the game are decided by those participants. I want the players to contribute, so they do.
I'm still the arbiter of the rules after the players contribute ideas to the setting. The players have nothing to do with adjudication.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMPlayers getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible.

It's been pretty great, actually.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

The ideal world is the one I create together with my friends. They should get a say in the nature of the game they agree to play in their free time.

I don't want power over the world. I want to run a fun game that my friends enjoy playing. I am currently achieving that goal, so I don't see any reason to use your approach.

Learn to let go. You don't have to be in control. If you don't trust your players to contribute to your game, you shouldn't be playing with them.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 01:56:23 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMIt eliminates the DM to Player dichotomy. By allowing players input into how the game setting is created, it weakens DM fiat.

Explain how it does this. My "fiat" hasn't been weakened in my current game at all.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMAn RPG is a role paying GAME. Not storytelling. You want to tell a story, go write a book.

I have not said anything to the contrary. "Players contribute to the game's setting" and "Players play in the game" do not contradict each other.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMWithout a clear distinction between DM and player, rules arbitration becomes murky and the DM can't perform one of his primary functions: referee.

The distinction remains clear after the players contribute elements to the setting.
Rules arbitration is exactly the same whether the players put things in the world or not. The resolution mechanics are unchanged. I'm not prevented from adjudicating in any way.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMNot only is it his role to create a game world, but it's just as important for him to act as rules interpreter and arbiter of said rules.
There is no rules by committee, nor game world by committee.

The roles of participants in the game are decided by those participants. I want the players to contribute, so they do.
I'm still the arbiter of the rules after the players contribute ideas to the setting. The players have nothing to do with adjudication.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMPlayers getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible.

It's been pretty great, actually.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

The ideal world is the one I create together with my friends. They should get a say in the nature of the game they agree to play in their free time.

I don't want power over the world. I want to run a fun game that my friends enjoy playing. I am currently achieving that goal, so I don't see any reason to use your approach.

Learn to let go. You don't have to be in control. If you don't trust your players to contribute to your game, you shouldn't be playing with them.

It sounds like to me from the description you've given of your group, you situation is unique compared to the rest of us. I get the impression that your group is very young, impressionable, and doesn't know anything different. If your method works for you, that's fine. Do not expect the same method to work with other groups, because it will most likely won't.

I can say for a fact your "Cooperative game world building" wouldn't work for mine. My players are too experienced with decades of gaming under their belts. They would do whatever they could to take that sort of game play and manipulate it to their advantage. I would do the exact same thing.

It wouldn't be done out of spite. It's done because the DM allows it to happen. You give a player an inch, and they'll take a mile.

I think this comes down to how someone approaches the game. It's obvious you come at it from a "cooperative" approach, where the players with their characters, along with the DM, are on this journey together. They players have a say so on how the game world unfolds in play, which is fine, as long as you can keep it under control.

My game, and most people here, take the old school "DM vs player" approach. The DM is the referee and the game world creator. The players create their characters and are set loose to interact within that world. They do things and it's up to me as DM if they can or can't do it. I don't have to worry about keeping things under control, because I've already set the limits on what characters can an cannot do.

Basically, what works for you won't always work for others and vice versa.

Have fun.

Quote from: blackstone on March 17, 2025, 08:08:46 AMIt sounds like to me from the description you've given of your group, you situation is unique compared to the rest of us. I get the impression that your group is very young, impressionable, and doesn't know anything different. If your method works for you, that's fine. Do not expect the same method to work with other groups, because it will most likely won't.

Baseless conjecture. Given the immaturity displayed by your description of your players, I could as easily claim the same of you and your group.

Most of my players come from a decade or more of 2e, 3e, and pathfinder.

Quote from: blackstoneI can say for a fact your "Cooperative game world building" wouldn't work for mine. My players are too experienced with decades of gaming under their belts. They would do whatever they could to take that sort of game play and manipulate it to their advantage. I would do the exact same thing.

I'm sorry you're too inexperienced to have grown out of this behavior.

Quote from: blackstoneIt wouldn't be done out of spite. It's done because the DM allows it to happen. You give a player an inch, and they'll take a mile.

It's done because you choose to do it. Choose differently.

Quote from: blackstoneI think this comes down to how someone approaches the game. It's obvious you come at it from a "cooperative" approach, where the players with their characters, along with the DM, are on this journey together. They players have a say so on how the game world unfolds in play, which is fine, as long as you can keep it under control.

You seem to have confused "contribute ideas to the setting" with "determine which events take place during the game", like most everyone who has replied to me. Are you not reading my posts that clarify this, or do you not understand the distinction?

I don't need to "keep anything under control", and I certainly don't need your advice. I don't want to control the game. I want to adjudicate the results of player decisions, and determine how the non-player elements behave.

Quote from: blackstoneMy game, and most people here, take the old school "DM vs player" approach.

(https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1706651841002055.png)

Quote from: blackstoneThe DM is the referee and the game world creator. The players create their characters and are set loose to interact within that world. They do things and it's up to me as DM if they can or can't do it. I don't have to worry about keeping things under control, because I've already set the limits on what characters can an cannot do.

This is the same for my games, with the sole exception that the players can contribute ideas for stuff that exists in the world, based on their character concept.

Quote from: blackstoneBasically, what works for you won't always work for others and vice versa.

Yes, obviously. I don't think I ever claimed that other people should play the way I do.

In all fairness, unless it's a storygame (I have minimal experience there) I feel most games will have DM as both primary world builder and final arbiter of what goes into a world. It just doesn't work very well otherwise, in the sense of conflicting creative visions and weaker overarching themes, unless you happen to be blessed with an abnormally awesome group of players. Even then, some system of arbitration is required.

That said, any game world with integrated player characters will likely have at least some player impact on the world prior to play, in the sense of at least a smidge of backstory. This backstory will to some degree be influenced by player interest, and will be confirmed by the DM. Sometimes the DM may reveal backstory facts in play, but then it's up to the players to act out dynamics and flesh out some of the specifics.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 10:38:26 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 17, 2025, 08:08:46 AMIt sounds like to me from the description you've given of your group, you situation is unique compared to the rest of us. I get the impression that your group is very young, impressionable, and doesn't know anything different. If your method works for you, that's fine. Do not expect the same method to work with other groups, because it will most likely won't.

Baseless conjecture. Given the immaturity displayed by your description of your players, I could as easily claim the same of you and your group.

Most of my players come from a decade or more of 2e, 3e, and pathfinder.

Quote from: blackstoneI can say for a fact your "Cooperative game world building" wouldn't work for mine. My players are too experienced with decades of gaming under their belts. They would do whatever they could to take that sort of game play and manipulate it to their advantage. I would do the exact same thing.

I'm sorry you're too inexperienced to have grown out of this behavior.

Quote from: blackstoneIt wouldn't be done out of spite. It's done because the DM allows it to happen. You give a player an inch, and they'll take a mile.

It's done because you choose to do it. Choose differently.

Quote from: blackstoneI think this comes down to how someone approaches the game. It's obvious you come at it from a "cooperative" approach, where the players with their characters, along with the DM, are on this journey together. They players have a say so on how the game world unfolds in play, which is fine, as long as you can keep it under control.

You seem to have confused "contribute ideas to the setting" with "determine which events take place during the game", like most everyone who has replied to me. Are you not reading my posts that clarify this, or do you not understand the distinction?

I don't need to "keep anything under control", and I certainly don't need your advice. I don't want to control the game. I want to adjudicate the results of player decisions, and determine how the non-player elements behave.

Quote from: blackstoneMy game, and most people here, take the old school "DM vs player" approach.

You should read what Gygax actually wrote some time.

The DM can do anything, and there is no victory condition.

Quote from: blackstoneThe DM is the referee and the game world creator. The players create their characters and are set loose to interact within that world. They do things and it's up to me as DM if they can or can't do it. I don't have to worry about keeping things under control, because I've already set the limits on what characters can an cannot do.

This is the same for my games, with the sole exception that the players can contribute ideas for stuff that exists in the world, based on their character concept.

Quote from: blackstoneBasically, what works for you won't always work for others and vice versa.

Yes, obviously. I don't think I ever claimed that other people should play the way I do.

You're being argumentative and arrogant. I wasn't giving advice to you on how to run your game. I'm simply saying that what you do works for you, and that's fine. It just won't work for everybody. There is no right or wrong way here.

-never said anything about "winning" or "losing. The "DM vs players" : DM presents obstacles to overcome and the players must overcome them. That's it. Don't lecture me about what EGG said. I'm fully aware.

- saying me and my players are "inexperienced" is laughable and arrogant. It's just a different style of play.

-also, to presume that you can give me advice how to run MY table is hypocritical of you, because you clearly stated that I shouldn't, even though I wasn't.

But you giving the impression that your way is superior is just simply arrogant.

Plus, we're onto you Domina. We all know this is a sock puppet account for you.

I never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

I'm still not thinking Domina has a sock puppet account. Because if so, they would presumably be either banned on their main account or using both accounts. That and the effort level of JoannaGeist's postings seem higher. Especially the fact that they seem to edit them and have actual image attachments here and there.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:12:25 AMI never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

I mean, in all fairness, none of us would be talking about how we do it if there wasn't some degree of belief that our way was a solid method and/or most useful for us. That said, you did say he should probably choose differently with respect to either his actions as a DM or a player?

Likewise, I do think both of you consider your methods superior, because otherwise why would you be using them.

Also both of y'all seem to think that the other has immature players or something. Irregardless, y'all both have valid styles of play, so no point wasting your time arguing over it. 

I think we all got some interesting info and ideas out of the exchange.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:12:25 AMI never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

You didn't. It was the impression you made. It was implied, as from these statements:

QuoteGiven the immaturity displayed by your description of your players, I could as easily claim the same of you and your group.

QuoteI'm sorry you're too inexperienced to have grown out of this behavior.

QuoteIt's done because you choose to do it.  Choose differently.

and then there is this, which is blatantly hypocritical of you:

QuoteYes, obviously. I don't think I ever claimed that other people should play the way I do.

Because taken in the context of the conversation, you clearly imply your way is better, and therefore..

Quotethat other people should play the way I do.

so you can promptly fuck off.

Let's plan a road trip to the Grand Canyon and see what happens along the way. Is it railroading if the driver reminds the group about the goal if they decide to spend time at various places or have car trouble and get sidetracked for a while? The goal is to reach the Grand Canyon but if, how and when that happens is ultimately decided by the car's occupants. A balance is key for a fun and entertaining trip and arguing semantics about what railroading and sandbox means seems to be only relevant to the most extreme players. A bit of nudging isn't railroading and some players will waste everyone's time if allowed to wander aimlessly

We play on Saturday, I email a rumor table every Wed. This gives the group time to decide what they want to do, and let me know so I can prep a bit more.

I write the rumor table out as a series of informants and gossip and lore to make it fun to read, and to introduce a number of NPC that may come into play some day:

• "Betty the barmaid at the Vulgar Unicorn is dating one of the rebels and he says...."
• "Sir Turdbucket says a member of the Thieves Guild came buy and said the Lord of the town has been meeting with members of the Cult of Fanatical Bat Lovers..."

So far its worked nicely and the players have been appreciative.

Also I attach their actions to rumors:
1. The players went through Lost Mines of Phendelver/Dragon of Icespire Peak and at some point looted the Dragon Barrow and Killed a white dragon. So I had gossip around town that the Dragon Barrow was looted and the Dragonsword stolen. Lord Neverember and the Rebels are looking for the sword as an ancient heirloom to solidify their claims of control as the sword was once possessed by leaders of the city. So the players +1 sword has value in faction play now.
2. After Lost Mines/Dragon of Icespire we segwayed into Storm King's Thunder and fought Giants a bit so I added the Hill Giants started rampaging after the white dragon Cryobane was killed (the party killed the dragon, and have some responsibility). Apparently dragons and giants hate each other so I worked with that.
3. They went into White Plume Mountain while I was trying to figure out where to go with the campaign and ended up with three over-powered Magic Items. I decided that instead of just being powerful items they'd be adventure magnets once they returned to Neverwinter to rest up and recover.
* Wave the trident was wanted by a cult of fishermen, sailers, and pirates who ambushed the party to reclaim their relic. With the cult destroyed now a bunch of fishermen and sailors have started following the possessor of Wave like he is a prophet (Life of Brian style) and may end up being an asset the party can use.
* Whelm was a Dwarven Hammer and the Dwarves in town put a bounty on it, and when that didn't work put a freeze on all assets and trade with anyone that dealt with the Hammer's owner. That convinced the owner of Whelm to trade it back to the Dwarves for a lessor magic item and now the Dwarves are very friendly and may end up being an asset the party can use.
* Blackrazor, well the player who got that started off his character as a "lord" so I decided he recovered his Uncle's sword (Uncle is a noble in Waterdeep) and the Uncle wanted it back and eventually sent a small army to Neverwinter to get it.

Anyway the party has leveled up enough to continue against the Giants, but they are so deep into Neverwinter politics I'm not sure they want to. When sandbox play works it can be very fun.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 11:12:25 AMI never said my method is superior. Screenshot the post or retract your statement and apologize.

No. You've been belittling and putting down any other style of play than your own.

In other words you fit right in here perfectly.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 17, 2025, 01:56:23 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMIt eliminates the DM to Player dichotomy. By allowing players input into how the game setting is created, it weakens DM fiat.

Explain how it does this. My "fiat" hasn't been weakened in my current game at all.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMAn RPG is a role paying GAME. Not storytelling. You want to tell a story, go write a book.

I have not said anything to the contrary. "Players contribute to the game's setting" and "Players play in the game" do not contradict each other.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMWithout a clear distinction between DM and player, rules arbitration becomes murky and the DM can't perform one of his primary functions: referee.

The distinction remains clear after the players contribute elements to the setting.
Rules arbitration is exactly the same whether the players put things in the world or not. The resolution mechanics are unchanged. I'm not prevented from adjudicating in any way.

Quote from: blackstone on March 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMNot only is it his role to create a game world, but it's just as important for him to act as rules interpreter and arbiter of said rules.
There is no rules by committee, nor game world by committee.

The roles of participants in the game are decided by those participants. I want the players to contribute, so they do.
I'm still the arbiter of the rules after the players contribute ideas to the setting. The players have nothing to do with adjudication.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMPlayers getting to edit or add to the world is always terrible.

It's been pretty great, actually.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2025, 12:12:39 PMThe ideal world doesn't come from players getting to do whatever they want with the world, or with the DM and players having an equal say in the world. Or from the DM having sole and total power over the world.

The ideal is a scenario where the players have NO say over the world (except for what their PCs do in the world), where the DM has limited powers over the world, and where effective generators manage the day-to-day of playing in the world.

The ideal world is the one I create together with my friends. They should get a say in the nature of the game they agree to play in their free time.

I don't want power over the world. I want to run a fun game that my friends enjoy playing. I am currently achieving that goal, so I don't see any reason to use your approach.

Learn to let go. You don't have to be in control. If you don't trust your players to contribute to your game, you shouldn't be playing with them.

If you are a traditional failed-author railroading DM, you are trying to be in control of the setting.
If your game has all the players and the DM introducing their failed-author ideas into the game, then you are all rivals in being in control of the setting.

The only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

As a GM, I see myself as a toy maker more than anything.  Whether it's a complication, an NPC, or a piece of loot, I'm always looking forward to seeing how the party interacts with it. 

Quote from: BadApple on March 19, 2025, 04:32:36 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

As a GM, I see myself as a toy maker more than anything.  Whether it's a complication, an NPC, or a piece of loot, I'm always looking forward to seeing how the party interacts with it. 

"DM as toymaker" is a new one for me.

I like this much better than "worldbuilder", which gets me thinking about why. "Worldbuilder" has always felt authorial/railroad in tone to me. I suppose I feel like the "world" is "built" by events, and the events I'm interested in are the ones where the PCs are interacting with the toys.

Neat way to look at it.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

Pretty much the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

I've been gaming with my particular group, in person, for many years. I kinda would like to think I know what they want from a gaming session.

And the main thing they seem to want from their GM is structure. They tend to flounder a lot if they are not presented with clear goals, and a totally sandbox playstyle tends to bring on choice paralysis on them.

While sometimes it's nice to have a session or two of pure rp with little to no defined goals, when it comes down to brass tacks, they prefer a mission-based campaign with defined goals to meet.

Sometimes they create a goal for themselves, but most of the time they seem to enjoy more adventures being presented to their characters from other individuals within a campaign setting (NPC "quest givers" if you will). In between these adventures, they like playing out living the high life for as long as the money they have earned carries them.

So far, their preferred games that we have played the longest are Shadowrun and Dark Heresy. Both very mission-based settings, with a very strong structure that many other gamers might call "railroading" style games, yet they have consistently chosen those games above others to play.

Quote from: Dropbear on March 19, 2025, 10:07:26 AMI've been gaming with my particular group, in person, for many years. I kinda would like to think I know what they want from a gaming session.

And the main thing they seem to want from their GM is structure. They tend to flounder a lot if they are not presented with clear goals, and a totally sandbox playstyle tends to bring on choice paralysis on them.

While sometimes it's nice to have a session or two of pure rp with little to no defined goals, when it comes down to brass tacks, they prefer a mission-based campaign with defined goals to meet.

Sometimes they create a goal for themselves, but most of the time they seem to enjoy more adventures being presented to their characters from other individuals within a campaign setting (NPC "quest givers" if you will). In between these adventures, they like playing out living the high life for as long as the money they have earned carries them.

So far, their preferred games that we have played the longest are Shadowrun and Dark Heresy. Both very mission-based settings, with a very strong structure that many other gamers might call "railroading" style games, yet they have consistently chosen those games above others to play.

There is nothing wrong in that either. What you've presented is a good example of how a campaign style works with a group, because they tend to go in that type of direction.

Be it a mission-based campaign or sandbox, you do what your group likes best.

Quote from: Dropbear on March 19, 2025, 10:07:26 AMSo far, their preferred games that we have played the longest are Shadowrun and Dark Heresy. Both very mission-based settings, with a very strong structure that many other gamers might call "railroading" style games, yet they have consistently chosen those games above others to play.

Again, we're sticking on the definition of "railroad". Are you talking about adventures where the outcome is pre-determined and the GM makes sure that outcome happens no matter what the players do?

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

This is the way. Learning to run your games this way takes time. Everyone is arguing what "is a railroad" vs. "linear adventures" - but they're all moving goalposts because as a GM you end up falling into all of these relative traps learning through trial and error (and hopefully advice) which eventually, if you stick it out, end up running it like a Clockmaker.

Because it really *is* the only way to avoid the pitfalls that everyone is talking about. It's harder to see as a player, or an inexperienced GM that has never played in such games. I've *never* had a player or GM get into one of my games and experience it, and not be positively affected by it.

I'm not saying we didn't have problems. There are a metric shit-ton of behaviors that players/GM's of linear adventures (published or otherwise) that cause them to underthink the realities of my campaigns. Specifically, they often overplay the significance of anything mentioned and *always* assume there is a "key to every lock" they come across somewhere nearby. Or that everything is *meant* for their PC's to find. Or that NPC's sit around in rooms doing nothing but waiting for PC's to kick in the doors to murder them for gold. Or hell... that GOLD is even a thing and while I don't change how much starting gold players have - I'm emphatic about how the world is on the Silver Standard, and normal people trade in silver or barter. They wonder why tossing gold around gets them so much attention... and likewise wonder why when they kill monsters that gold is fairly sparse.

The level of detail both can turn off a player to these conceits, but without fail, that taste of freedom and danger when wandering around a locale isn't just a verbal replication of a Healing Store/Tavern/Dungeon Quest vendor like in a videogame. Instead it's a place where the NPC's have their own active motives that weave in-and-out of the PC's observational bubble, doing whatever it is they need to do, there are idiosyncrasies to their locations that go *way* past their assumptions. This keeps those players on the edge and draws them in with engagement beyond the "find the thing, do the thing, rinse-repeat". In my games, there are things going on, and they may do YOU.

I was reading an article about Sandboxes and the author suggested that the most difficult part of becoming a Sandbox GM was giving up on the idea that you're there to entertain the players, and they need to be entertained a la YouTube famous actual Play GMs. You need to learn to tolerate that anxiety and then let players learn to be proactive and do stuff.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 20, 2025, 06:40:22 PMI was reading an article about Sandboxes and the author suggested that the most difficult part of becoming a Sandbox GM was giving up on the idea that you're there to entertain the players, and they need to be entertained a la YouTube famous actual Play GMs. You need to learn to tolerate that anxiety and then let players learn to be proactive and do stuff.

I think that's only true at the start. Sure you can run it that way. But imagine it like this: when you're world building, the goal isn't just about making it "generic D&D fantasy", even if that is one of the goals you want it to have its own idiosyncrasies that ideally you should be leaning *into*.

That's where you should put your creative energy in terms of creating "set-pieces" (in my sandbox terminology these are not just swings, and slides, but they are slides that might be spirals, and loops, or swings that have greased seats) for your players to engage with that have their own conceits beyond the obvious. This might sound "themepark" but I contend that as long as it keeps with your worlds internal consistency, it absolutely is there to be fucked with for the pure purpose of entertainment. EVEN if this means your players hate it and want to destroy it - they have made the call that it would be entertaining to destroy it.

But yeah, there is a lot of anxiety for a new sandbox GM that is coming from AP's and module-only affairs, but they'll also find that some of those techniques do transfer over. The goal should be identifying what bad habits don't work in a sandbox - which is where that anxiety comes in. But these can be overcome pretty easy with some basic sandbox principles I maintain.

Quote from: tenbones on March 20, 2025, 05:39:02 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

This is the way. Learning to run your games this way takes time. Everyone is arguing what "is a railroad" vs. "linear adventures" - but they're all moving goalposts because as a GM you end up falling into all of these relative traps learning through trial and error (and hopefully advice) which eventually, if you stick it out, end up running it like a Clockmaker.

Well, it takes a bit more time BEFORE the campaign starts. If you set things up properly before the campaign, and you have a good set of random generators at your disposal, you can manage to handle the "clockmaker god" role very easily in actual play.

I think the biggest advantage to sandbox play is that the GM is also engaged, surprised, and flexing their creativity.  It is one of the reasons that I gave up early on published adventures.  If I do have one, it is to be cannibalized for spare parts and inspiration more than running as is.

Quote from: zircher on March 22, 2025, 03:40:17 PMI think the biggest advantage to sandbox play is that the GM is also engaged, surprised, and flexing their creativity.  It is one of the reasons that I gave up early on published adventures.  If I do have one, it is to be cannibalized for spare parts and inspiration more than running as is.

Absolutely. I also use adventures mostly for inspiration and spare parts.

Quote from: zircher on March 22, 2025, 03:40:17 PMI think the biggest advantage to sandbox play is that the GM is also engaged, surprised, and flexing their creativity.  It is one of the reasons that I gave up early on published adventures.  If I do have one, it is to be cannibalized for spare parts and inspiration more than running as is.

Exactly. I have this theory that long-term GM's gravitate towards sandboxing because the role of GMing is largely thankless, but finding joy in GMing is tricky when there is no ready path to prepare noobs to do it. Most people start because no one else will do it. Being a player is always fun because of the unknown. Running sandbox gives it to the GM once they've done all their prep, wound it all up and then let it fly with the PC's doing whatever they want.

It's the peak moments of my campaigns where *I* don't know wtf is about to happen, my players don't know wtf is about to happen, but their PC's moving tectonic plates in the campaign that just can't be replicated in AP's and modules.

That is the dragon I chase as GM - and while it can be talked about, it needs to be experienced to fully understand. When you do experience it, there is no looking back. That's how it was for me decades ago... and here I am, still chasing it with wild abandon.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 21, 2025, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: tenbones on March 20, 2025, 05:39:02 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

This is the way. Learning to run your games this way takes time. Everyone is arguing what "is a railroad" vs. "linear adventures" - but they're all moving goalposts because as a GM you end up falling into all of these relative traps learning through trial and error (and hopefully advice) which eventually, if you stick it out, end up running it like a Clockmaker.

Well, it takes a bit more time BEFORE the campaign starts. If you set things up properly before the campaign, and you have a good set of random generators at your disposal, you can manage to handle the "clockmaker god" role very easily in actual play.

This is my experience most of the time time with sandbox play. You do need to do some heavy lifting before. And every so often you might have to during (if you are adding more stuff to the map for example or fleshing out a location on the map in greater detail). But for the most part they are like little self-sustaining ecosystems if you get it right and do it well.

One bit of advice I have: keep a master binder on hand for everything for a given sandbox. I made the mistake of parting with my master binder for Ogre Gate for a bit and it made running sandboxes a huge pain (all my locations were on files in folders on my computer and that is just way less fluid and organic than a binder where you can easily add whatever map you just made). If the binder is really big, I have found it useful to get a food tray and use that as a kind of podium to keep next to your chair (beats having it out on the table----just an easier way to access the information)

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 25, 2025, 04:19:19 PMOne bit of advice I have: keep a master binder on hand for everything for a given sandbox. I made the mistake of parting with my master binder for Ogre Gate for a bit and it made running sandboxes a huge pain (all my locations were on files in folders on my computer and that is just way less fluid and organic than a binder where you can easily add whatever map you just made). If the binder is really big, I have found it useful to get a food tray and use that as a kind of podium to keep next to your chair (beats having it out on the table----just an easier way to access the information)

The last few years, I've been riffing on the 1-page adventure idea, only adapted for sandbox notes.  Except, I do 2-page locations, because I tend to print front and back, and find 1 page sometimes a little constraining.  It's still an evolving target. Essentially I'm trying to organize all my notes on not just locations but also NPCs, organization, region overview, etc. in files that can print on 2 pages.  If nothing else, it makes inserting/replacing into the notebook so much easier.  My handwriting is too poor to depend on it for long-term notes--as in even I can't read it sometimes later. 

What I'm missing is a better index system for labeling, to replace simple page numbers.  If anyone has some experience with that, I'd love to hear it.  I do label the hexes on the maps and refer to them in the notes.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 25, 2025, 06:13:06 PMI do 2-page locations, because I tend to print front and back, and find 1 page sometimes a little constraining.  It's still an evolving target. Essentially I'm trying to organize all my notes on not just locations but also NPCs, organization, region overview, etc. in files that can print on 2 pages.

2 Pages is ideal for me, but I prefer spreads to front/back, so I can view the entire encounter at once without flipping pages.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 25, 2025, 06:13:06 PMIf nothing else, it makes inserting/replacing into the notebook so much easier.

But spreads don't help here, unless you includes lots of blank pages.

Quote from: Zalman on March 26, 2025, 07:56:24 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 25, 2025, 06:13:06 PMI do 2-page locations, because I tend to print front and back, and find 1 page sometimes a little constraining.  It's still an evolving target. Essentially I'm trying to organize all my notes on not just locations but also NPCs, organization, region overview, etc. in files that can print on 2 pages.

2 Pages is ideal for me, but I prefer spreads to front/back, so I can view the entire encounter at once without flipping pages.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 25, 2025, 06:13:06 PMIf nothing else, it makes inserting/replacing into the notebook so much easier.

But spreads don't help here, unless you includes lots of blank pages.

Yeah.  I've gotten into the habit of certain pages I take out while using them while others I leave in.  The ones I leave in tend to be things that I reuse.  So it makes sense to make them a spread.  Though more than likely I'll try to get them down to 1-page sections anyway, so that I can slip them into a sleeve.  I have a bigger issue misplacing things or too much page flipping while running.  So a front/back adventure means that I only need to keep track of that 1 sheet.  I'll have it, my note pad, and maybe a map in 1 stack, that I don't mess with (ideally), and that way I can always get back to it rapidly.  Seems to matter more in that case than having the whole thing in front of me at once.  Which all goes to show this is very personal to the GM. 

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 25, 2025, 04:19:19 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 21, 2025, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: tenbones on March 20, 2025, 05:39:02 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2025, 04:18:08 AMThe only REAL way to let go is to run the game as a Clockmaker God. The players aren't would-be authors, you aren't a would-be author. Instead, you are allowing the world to create itself.

This is the way. Learning to run your games this way takes time. Everyone is arguing what "is a railroad" vs. "linear adventures" - but they're all moving goalposts because as a GM you end up falling into all of these relative traps learning through trial and error (and hopefully advice) which eventually, if you stick it out, end up running it like a Clockmaker.

Well, it takes a bit more time BEFORE the campaign starts. If you set things up properly before the campaign, and you have a good set of random generators at your disposal, you can manage to handle the "clockmaker god" role very easily in actual play.

This is my experience most of the time time with sandbox play. You do need to do some heavy lifting before. And every so often you might have to during (if you are adding more stuff to the map for example or fleshing out a location on the map in greater detail). But for the most part they are like little self-sustaining ecosystems if you get it right and do it well.

One bit of advice I have: keep a master binder on hand for everything for a given sandbox. I made the mistake of parting with my master binder for Ogre Gate for a bit and it made running sandboxes a huge pain (all my locations were on files in folders on my computer and that is just way less fluid and organic than a binder where you can easily add whatever map you just made). If the binder is really big, I have found it useful to get a food tray and use that as a kind of podium to keep next to your chair (beats having it out on the table----just an easier way to access the information)

Keeping good track of your campaign is very important advice.

Quote from: tenbones on March 25, 2025, 10:42:41 AM

Quote from: zircher on March 22, 2025, 03:40:17 PMI think the biggest advantage to sandbox play is that the GM is also engaged, surprised, and flexing their creativity.  It is one of the reasons that I gave up early on published adventures.  If I do have one, it is to be cannibalized for spare parts and inspiration more than running as is.

Exactly. I have this theory that long-term GM's gravitate towards sandboxing because the role of GMing is largely thankless,

Maybe I'm lucky, but most of the time my players have been polite, thanking me for DMing (and I thank them for showing up) and if I'm playing at someone's place, they host and provide the snackies.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 27, 2025, 10:25:48 AM

Quote from: tenbones on March 25, 2025, 10:42:41 AM

Quote from: zircher on March 22, 2025, 03:40:17 PMI think the biggest advantage to sandbox play is that the GM is also engaged, surprised, and flexing their creativity.  It is one of the reasons that I gave up early on published adventures.  If I do have one, it is to be cannibalized for spare parts and inspiration more than running as is.

Exactly. I have this theory that long-term GM's gravitate towards sandboxing because the role of GMing is largely thankless,

Maybe I'm lucky, but most of the time my players have been polite, thanking me for DMing (and I thank them for showing up) and if I'm playing at someone's place, they host and provide the snackies.

My problem is I have three other players that say they want to GM, but they do this thing I tell them ***not*** to do - which is emulate me. Because they are beginners or casual GM's (they play with other groups) and so they only know what I do when they're at the table with me. They run modules and AP's, but when they've tried to run games with our group, they implode because they're shooting too high for their skillset.

I tell them jumping right into sandbox-GMing requires some forethought and a little elbow-grease, but they think I'm sitting down at the table and just spewing magic through pure improvisation. They have no idea how much I obsess about curating my sandboxes, and thinking of interesting ingredients to put in it, and making NPC's with machinations, and tying those machinations to "hooks" in the game for the PC's to discover (or not). I always tell them not to copy what they think I do, rather let me help them do some basic setup with a small sandbox, so they can see how it works.

A good gaming group *should* have multiple GM's - but the caveat for me is that I don't like dabblers. You gotta commit or stop wasting my time. There is the other issue, none of them *really* want to commit. Which is the big point. A couple of them have told me they feel intimidated GMing me and the rest of the group. Which is fucking **weird** to me. I would love to play - my single free-standing rule is anyone that wants to GM can take over at any point. But no one wants to ever stop doing my games to swim in what they know will be a smaller pond. They'll put up with it only because I gladly step out of the GM chair.

I think my situation is probably a lot different than others, but it is what it is. I have no problem GMing, I truly enjoy it for my own reasons. But I don't want to waste my time if someone is going to sit in the chair and half-ass it. I tell them go ahead and run an AP, or modules. I say it *relentlessly* so they can learn the basics. But without fail, they try to go off-script and get lost in the woods and they're all too prideful to ask me for help or suggestions.

And thus... I'm the forever GM. My crew in LA were a pack of opinionated animals. We had like 5 very active GM's in the group (and it was three groups of 17 players that interchanged players based on the campaign i.e. we're all in the same campaign in different parts of the gameworld), and we all pushed one another constantly. I'd love to have that here, but time commitment is an issue for how I play, and quality GM's are hard to find.

I'm completely happy being the GM.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:05:37 AMI'm completely happy being the GM.

Somehow, I have to get you to be a player in one of my games.

Back in the day some of my players wanted to be GM. One managed 3 adventures spread out over 3 years, the other managed just one. It's not for everybody. I'm happy being the DM and to be honest my current 5E game got much more fun when I cut loose from the WotC tracks and we got Sandboxy.

Quote from: BadApple on March 28, 2025, 09:23:17 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:05:37 AMI'm completely happy being the GM.

Somehow, I have to get you to be a player in one of my games.

That would be highly unlikely. Nothing against you personally, I just vastly prefer using my limited time to run my own campaigns.