Always.

The world should have events that happen that make sense for the setting.

Living breathing world.

However, a gm must learn to not overshadow the characters with events and npc's. (unless that is the goal of the game and the players like that?)

It's a delicate balancing act.

Quote from: Elfdart;627442:rolleyes:

Or you could just use the Events Tables from OA.

but the events table or me just making shit up is the same.
the point is say for example that the Outlaw brotherhood are attacking River Keep. The battle happens the PCs crossed paths with a few characters they could have changed the course of events but didn't. Now there I have a choice of 3 options.
1 - decide who wins - this will be be based on relative strength of each side but also influenced almost subconsciously by what makes a better story in the campaign world long term.
2 - I roll a dice to see who wins. weight it 30 -70, 50-50 whatever
3 - I do it properly and play through the entire battle using the physics of the world as defined and expressed by the rules.

Now 3 is the 'real' sandbox way to do it but in the real world....

So I take a short cut and take option 1.
Using an event table is fine and there might be some benefit to it if the table has been designed for the setting.

It would be interesting to see the depth to which each GM runs a sandbox. We should do a poll.

Quote from: Bill;627519Always.

The world should have events that happen that make sense for the setting.

Living breathing world.

However, a gm must learn to not overshadow the characters with events and npc's. (unless that is the goal of the game and the players like that?)

It's a delicate balancing act.

A rarely brought up point.
Frankly, in many better GM'd games, it is the art of making the Player Characters the center of the world while appearing to make no effort towards this.
So the PCs feel like it was all them, baby.

Quote from: jibbajibba;627522Now 3 is the 'real' sandbox way to do it but in the real world....

Do you truly believe that playing out battles solo that don't involve other players is something that 'real' sandbox DMs do?

I run sandbox campaigns and have never done so. Events in the world without PC involvement resolve themselves with either a simple die roll based on probable outcomes or a simple decision when the odds are well in favor of a particular outcome.

Improbable outcomes despite the odds are the stuff of legends and will involve the players directly.

I very much subscribe to the idea that the PCs actions can and should have consequences in the campaign.  I also understand the importance of keeping a calendar, and using (random?) world events to spice up a campaign.  However, I do not normally have NPCs doing things in the background unless it's specifically related to current events in the campaign, and only if it involves the PCs in some way.

I do not mean to sound contrary, but at what point do any you feel that such work crosses the line from "living" campaign/dedicated DM to the DM essentially playing with himself (pun intended).

Quote from: The Were-Grognard;627562I do not mean to sound contrary, but at what point do any you feel that such work crosses the line from "living" campaign/dedicated DM to the DM essentially playing with himself (pun intended).

Building an RPG setting is a bit of a hobby in itself... so I don't see it as any more masturbatory than any other. The trouble is when you let it become 'the precious' and resent the players in-game stomping all over your carefully wrought intricacies.

In the first adventure I ever ran I had an old man and a gold-gilt skeleton sitting at the mouth of the dungeon. NPC for which I'd worked up an elaborate backstory... and how they related to the ruins. They were meant to tell the history of the dungeon, the ominous warnings of what awaited below... and if spoken to politely and attentively they'd offer up some useful advice and maybe a helpful trinket.
The skeleton had a request that would have netted them extra treasure if completed.
Sure enough the players slaughtered them on sight before a word could be spoken.
Somehow that didn't keep me from continuing to put that sort of stuff in my games though... at least I knew it was there.

Quote from: The Were-Grognard;627562I do not mean to sound contrary, but at what point do any you feel that such work crosses the line from "living" campaign/dedicated DM to the DM essentially playing with himself (pun intended).

As a writer, it's my job to "play with myself". I guess this makes my DM activities a sort of "intercourse"

Quote from: The Were-Grognard;627562I very much subscribe to the idea that the PCs actions can and should have consequences in the campaign.  I also understand the importance of keeping a calendar, and using (random?) world events to spice up a campaign.  However, I do not normally have NPCs doing things in the background unless it's specifically related to current events in the campaign, and only if it involves the PCs in some way.

I do not mean to sound contrary, but at what point do any you feel that such work crosses the line from "living" campaign/dedicated DM to the DM essentially playing with himself (pun intended).

For me, what works is figuring out an overview for what initially exists in the setting, and fleshing out areas of interest as the game progresses. If I have a continent with 20 nations on it, I do not fully flesh out all 20 down to the last roadside inn at the start of a campaign.

Quote from: jeff37923;627031When GMing, I often have events happening in the background or foreground that can be affected by the Players if they so choose. Some of them will happen to the detriment of the PCs if they do not do something. The setting is dynamic and things are constantly in motion.

How many others approach scenarios this way?

That's exactly how I do things, yes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;627522but the events table or me just making shit up is the same.
the point is say for example that the Outlaw brotherhood are attacking River Keep. The battle happens the PCs crossed paths with a few characters they could have changed the course of events but didn't. Now there I have a choice of 3 options.
1 - decide who wins - this will be be based on relative strength of each side but also influenced almost subconsciously by what makes a better story in the campaign world long term.
2 - I roll a dice to see who wins. weight it 30 -70, 50-50 whatever
3 - I do it properly and play through the entire battle using the physics of the world as defined and expressed by the rules.

Now 3 is the 'real' sandbox way to do it but in the real world....

Get da fuck outta here!

The events are like the weather. In fact, some are weather (flood, fire, storm, drought): Unless the PCs can or will do something to affect the outcome then how the DM determines the outcome doesn't matter.

Quote from: Elfdart;628019Get da fuck outta here!

The events are like the weather. In fact, some are weather (flood, fire, storm, drought): Unless the PCs can or will do something to affect the outcome then how the DM determines the outcome doesn't matter.

I tend to agree.

Like I have said many times I just make shit up. all the time. But I would never claim that my sandbox was a perfect world in motion that the PCs slot into etc .
Some peopel here would say they run a perfect sand box
They would say that because my goblin barracks only exists in my head and it's layout is taken whole cloth from a school I used to teach at becuase that is what I thought of 3 minuts ago when the PCs said that they would go there. That I am guilty of illusionism. Whereas they have everything detailed and all events proceed regardless of player involvement in them, except they don't.

[Brooklyn Accent] Capisce? [/Brooklyn Accent]

Quote from: The Were-Grognard;627562I do not mean to sound contrary, but at what point do any you feel that such work crosses the line from "living" campaign/dedicated DM to the DM essentially playing with himself (pun intended).

Quote from: Simlasa;627578Building an RPG setting is a bit of a hobby in itself... so I don't see it as any more masturbatory than any other. The trouble is when you let it become 'the precious' and resent the players in-game stomping all over your carefully wrought intricacies.

Quote from: Reckall;627581As a writer, it's my job to "play with myself". I guess this makes my DM activities a sort of "intercourse"

I actually like that Traveller encourages a GM to mess around "solo", run merchant ships, space battles, etc., to get a feel for the rules.  ('Course, Trav probably has better support than most games to actually make this "solo play" worthwhile.)

Quote from: jibbajibba;628035They would say that because my goblin barracks only exists in my head and it's layout is taken whole cloth from a school I used to teach at becuase that is what I thought of 3 minuts ago when the PCs said that they would go there. That I am guilty of illusionism. Whereas they have everything detailed and all events proceed regardless of player involvement in them, except they don't.

I think any distinction about illusionism is pointless because the ideal of having everything detailed beforehand is not achievable. At some level the referee has to make stuff up.

To me the big question is how to make stuff up and still be fair to your players?

What I personally do is extrapolate from the details I do know and use what I call my Bag of Stuff for the rest. A referee's mental Bag of Stuff contains generic details about various aspects of the setting. That way while it is made up on the spot, what I create is consistent with the rest of the setting. And it is fair to the players because I am following a rough set of guidelines.

Using a School layout for a goblin barracks is an excellent example of a referee using his Bag of Stuff to create something that the players unexpectantly decided to visit during the session.

Because it is probably a vivid memory you could use that school as template for future goblin barracks, varying it to account for size, like just use one wing for a smaller garrison, and for local variations, for example the barracks in the Eagle Mountains have the wings transposed and one of them is chopped in half and replaced with a arena.

Quote from: jibbajibba;628035I tend to agree.

Like I have said many times I just make shit up. all the time. But I would never claim that my sandbox was a perfect world in motion that the PCs slot into etc .
Some peopel here would say they run a perfect sand box
They would say that because my goblin barracks only exists in my head and it's layout is taken whole cloth from a school I used to teach at becuase that is what I thought of 3 minuts ago when the PCs said that they would go there. That I am guilty of illusionism. Whereas they have everything detailed and all events proceed regardless of player involvement in them, except they don't.

[Brooklyn Accent] Capisce? [/Brooklyn Accent]

No gm can prepare everything.  Especially in a large and vibrant world.
Whether it be the contents of a cupboard, the room the cupboard is in, the Inn the room is in, or the neighborhood the Inn is within (yes, I am enjoying myself), at the heart of the GM's job is to make shit up that fits into the gameworld and setting seamlessly enough so that the PCs don't know what is made up and what is preset and what is the extrapolated middle (another important ability).

" Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design
 
"The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion. Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position. The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability."


One of the reasons I mention the extrapolated middle is that I believe it is ignored or not talked about as much.  I will also say this is one of the reasons myself and others (Estar comes to mind) tend to spend the bulk of our time working in a single major setting, because that extrapolation becomes much more 'setting specific' that way.  The interweaving of hundreds and hundreds of sessions and creating this data makes it much more accessible for the unconsious.
I don't need to make up the beers and wines or liquors of Igbar, or the neighborhoods, or the personalities or the tensions between guilds or where the parks are or the level of crime and who is paying off who, that's done.
So when I do have to use that GM skill Jibba mentions about creating stuff on the fly, there is a lot of concrete data I have to draw and crossreference from internally, and i think the level of 'built upon extrapolation' when I have to get creative both enhances the consistencey and the 'Illusion of Preparedness' as well as making the setting more concrete to the players.

Quote from: estar;628078I think any distinction about illusionism is pointless because the ideal of having everything detailed beforehand is not achievable. At some level the referee has to make stuff up.

To me the big question is how to make stuff up and still be fair to your players?

What I personally do is extrapolate from the details I do know and use what I call my Bag of Stuff for the rest. A referee's mental Bag of Stuff contains generic details about various aspects of the setting. That way while it is made up on the spot, what I create is consistent with the rest of the setting. And it is fair to the players because I am following a rough set of guidelines.

Using a School layout for a goblin barracks is an excellent example of a referee using his Bag of Stuff to create something that the players unexpectantly decided to visit during the session.

Because it is probably a vivid memory you could use that school as template for future goblin barracks, varying it to account for size, like just use one wing for a smaller garrison, and for local variations, for example the barracks in the Eagle Mountains have the wings transposed and one of them is chopped in half and replaced with a arena.

I obviously agree with all of that as its how I roll (or role ? hmm..)
I simply have no desire to do the prep. So long as the second idea I have is consistent with the first and so on the thing should work.

The key is to decide what is in the box or behind the door before the PCs decide wheter they are going to open it or not. Before they open it is too late, you have to it either as its created or well in advance of the PCs thinking about it too much.
I'll stick in 4 trunks 3 will contain the bandits loot but the one with the red handle will be fire trapped with a ward.

Not knocking random rolls at that point either but decide or random roll is just the DM enjoying himself makes no odd to the players.