Quote from: CRKrueger;982941Plus, there might be a chance that some other group encounters the Sea Cave, and gets the treasure out of it, and the first group of players hear a rumor about it.

Which is the best of all.  Especially when the group who got it tell the group that didn't.  "Boy, you knuckleheads should have listened to old Gobby the Sailor at Dirty Mary's Crab Shack!"

Quote from: CRKrueger;982937(cue the Master Face Reader who can always tell if the GM is reusing a Sea Cave map ).

I have an anti-poker face.  My thoughts are plain as day.  When I say "I cannot tell a lie" it's not because of any great moral strength, it's because I suck at it.

Quote from: Voros;982846Sorry not buying it. You constantly framed your argument about what 'he' was doing suggesting he was some egomaniac who thought he'd replace D&D. Hence your misrepresentation of his fantasy heartbreaker essay. It was a relatively subtle (for RPGSite) ad hominem but is clearly there.

... Where did I say anything about replacing D&D? You sure you're thinking of the right letter?

That -F. guy takes everything personally... Maybe you got confused?

Cheers,
-E.

Most 13th Age One Unique Things are less ridiculous: the OUT for my Gnome Ranger who rode a woolly rhino was "Sometimes the North Wind tells me things," and the OUT for my Dragonborn Commander was "I'm the only survivor of the Crusader's Brimstone Falls campaign, and it was his enemy the Diabolist who saved me." I also created a Human Ranger variation on the WFRP Rat-Catcher whose OUT was "After my nose was bitten off cleansing his cellars, the Archmage gave me an orchicalcum replacement--now I smell things that aren't there."

Quote from: Nexus;982940Its something I do allot, FWIW.

I occasionally do, but it's dependent on what it is, and how closely it's tied to the setting/location.  

• Move a Sea Cave?  Nah, I'd do the tweak/reskin if I was gonna do it.
• Move a Temple or Tower or something, definitely not.
• Move a bandit group?  Maybe.  Messing with NPCs for me depends on three things.
• The likelihood of these PCs or other PCs remaining in the area and encountering these NPCs.
• How tied to the specific location the NPC is.
• How likely the NPCs are going to remain a permanent fixture.

For example, a group of bandits might not have ties to an area, the next time you encounter their lair, Orcs could have driven them out, or the Law has hanged most of them and an Owlbear has moved into their cave, etc.  NPCs in a town, that's something different, but again, a Bounty Hunter they missed interacting with in a bar, could easily be found someplace else (although what he's doing will probably change).

Basically there's a Photo Finish between Setting Integrity and Practical, Immediate Table Need, with Table Need taking it by a nose.  That's why I do prep, so I'll never get caught with my pants down on game night.  But, if I do find myself unprepared, I would much rather go commando and freeball it by improvising then violate setting integrity, even if I'm the only one who will ever know.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982887The thread has been great, tons of good info. I have one last question I'd appreciate clarification on. In this post

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/9187915057/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_show_all?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1

[...]

Did you mean to post this to the "how to sandbox" thread? Also, is that the link you meant to include?

Quote from: -E.;982961... Where did I say anything about replacing D&D? You sure you're thinking of the right letter?

That -F. guy takes everything personally... Maybe you got confused?

Cheers,
-E.

You need me to quote yourself back at you?

"He's frustrated that a bunch of people used D&D as a template for their games and that they follow the traditional model, instead of following his ideas about RPGs."

You continually claim he is 'frustrated' and 'heart broken' that his design failed to be as popular as D&D heartbreakers and his ideas are a 'failure.' There is no reason to think he feels anything you claim and the negative connoatations are clear, you continue to be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

In terms of the 'failure' of his ideas the terms fantasy heartbreaker, pink slime fantasy and even brain damage have entered into everyday RPG nomenclature. We'd be all so lucky to have our ideas 'fail' in such a way.

And what exactly are these successful heartbreakers you claim he is discussing? The ones he mentions in the actual essay were clearly not commercially successful as they are incredibly obscure.

And to claim modern OSR games as heartbreakers is faulty in the extreme, they are at best house ruled editions with only The Black and White Hacks being significant revisions. And both of those are really simplifications of the rules whereas the heartbreakers he discusses usually went the other direction and piled on even more rules.

You also seem to be assuming a level of 'success' to OSR games all out of whack with reality. From what Zak and Raggi say an out of control best seller in the OSR moves something like 2000 units. More often they seem to be in the 200-500 range and that is only if they are 'successful.'

Hardly world destroying numbers and I would be willing to bet the 'Children of Ron' like AW and Monsterhearts are moving comparable numbers.

Some elements of the OSR seem to have delusions of grandeur regarding their 'success.' I've read people on OSR forums and blogs suggest that D&D should imitate the OSR because of how successful it is! The OSR's success commercially is laughable, the OSR did influence 5e but it did so through the quality and persuasiveness of the ideas and content, not sale numbers.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982924Or not.

Sandboxing originally involved multiple groups of players with multiple agendas.  And yes, the players may never discover some of your neat shit.  Much like 'Kill your NPCs,' you must kill your favorite adventure locations.

A large part of the referee's fun was assumed to be creating the world (a la M.A.R. Barker's world of Tekumel), so no prep was ever "wasted."

Here here - Ive never felt cheated by "wasted" prep. Building the world is the most gratifying part of the game for me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;982937The Railroad/Cheating portion of re-using comes in usually in the form of "Schrodinger's Ogre" or in this case Schrodinger's Sea Cave.  In the Railroading version, they can't miss the Sea Cave, because no matter what passage they take, they encounter the Sea Cave.  Technically not re-using, because everything gets used. (Note: This is why that guy stomped out of your Star Wars game, Grove. This what he thought you were doing).

A milder version of Schrodinger's Sea Cave is simply re-using as is.  Next time the characters need a Sea Cave, you dust off one they haven't seen yet, even if it is one that's supposed to be a hundred miles down the coast, and slap it down.  Now, this isn't necessarily railroading, there's a decent chance they'll miss this Sea Cave just like they did last time.  If you're not forcing them to see it, it isn't Railroading.  Is it cheating?  Well depends on the players I guess.  It's definitely cheating Setting Consistency, but unless you use it a second time, the players will never know (cue the Master Face Reader who can always tell if the GM is reusing a Sea Cave map ).  If it saves you time, you're the one that has to look in that mirror.

I think the more standard form of re-using is doing what you would do if you bought a module and wanted to grab a map and encounters from it.  Do a tweak and reskin as Brand55 and Lunamancer are saying.   The original location is still there, the new one is ready to go and can'y be mistaken for the original.  No Harm, No Foul.

I would be careful with that "Players will never know" phrase. Ive gotten beaten soundly a few times for claiming this when defending the old RR. Cheating is bad regardless if you get caught or not. Any deception between GM and players is really looked down upon by some.

Quote from: rgrove0172;983000Here here - Ive never felt cheated by "wasted" prep. Building the world is the most gratifying part of the game for me.

I admit, I do feel disappointed. When I'm designing things for an rpg I look forward to how the PCs are going to interact with it and the players (hopefully) enjoy it.

Quote from: Nexus;982940Its something I do allot, FWIW.

It still feels very much like railroading to me. Your not exactly forcing the group to find that Sea Cave but your sure hedging it a bit by moving it around ahead of them. Similarly I have never forced my players down a specific path but Ive suggested it (through NPCs) and made it seem like the obvious choice and so on in the hopes that they would. Not much difference in my opinion.

Quote from: Arminius;982986Did you mean to post this to the "how to sandbox" thread? Also, is that the link you meant to include?

oops

Quote from: rgrove0172;983004It still feels very much like railroading to me. Your not exactly forcing the group to find that Sea Cave but your sure hedging it a bit by moving it around ahead of them. .

They can chose not to go into the hypothetical sea cave. But I'm not running a sandbox came to begin with. Things are set until they're encountered. And they're is not much point to creating setting material to never use it, IMO.

Quote from: Nexus;983003I admit, I do feel disappointed. When I'm designing things for an rpg I look forward to how the PCs are going to interact with it and the players (hopefully) enjoy it.

Im probably an oddity but I "prep" areas of personal interest as a sort of hobby on its own, regardless if the players are closeby, have a hope of ever traveling there or if they are even in that setting! I have fleshed out areas of setting maps and never run a game there!