I run and play all of my games via pure text (and image links). Sometimes, these are synchronous, live text. At other times, they are play-by-post; I have run and finished several PbP adventures in a compact time frame (e.g. just under a week for a core rulebook's starter adventure) by consistently keeping things moving.I often join PbP games that recruit online. There are often rifts in expectations. Across the past several months, one recurring issue I have seen crop up three times is the "sandbox + PbP + nothing to actually do" phenomenon. I am sure that not all sandbox PbP GMs are like this, but it feels like a non-negligible number of GMs start up a sandbox PbP because they want to put in the least effort possible.These three games played out the exact same way. The GM starts off the PCs in an uneventful location, like some generic town, describing it noncommittally. The players and their PCs (including me and my own character) search around for plot hooks, opportunities, and points or persons of interest: job boards, reports of monsters or criminals, rumors of treasure or strange activities, word of what lies in a certain direction away from town, chances to fulfill some backstory-related goal, and so on. The GM tells the players and the PCs that they turn up nothing. The game fizzles out after a while, because there is nothing to do but aimlessly wander.What was the GM expecting? Was the GM thinking that the players and their PCs would, completely by themselves, kick off some epic and exciting sequence of events? Even with nothing of interest to actually work off?Two of the aforementioned games indeed petered out. One, which started last March, is still ongoing. It is a superhero game, and we have lost players. Superpowers are new in the setting, and yet the GM has been having NPCs act unimpressed or skeptical about our powers. Only now, three months later, have we finally managed to find an antagonist with superpowers to confront.What do you think?
Let me expound on the superhero game example. We began last March, and have lost players since.The GM starts our characters in a tech expo: a mundane tech expo, nothing super. We search around for any strange activity or opportunities, and turn up nothing. We try to impress people with our superpowers, but our efforts are brushed off or disbelieved, despite superpowers being a new phenomenon in this setting. (Honestly: Is it any wonder why some PCs flip out and start acting like chaotic, violent murderhobos "for no reason"?)We finally find some scientist giving a speech. We crash the speech with our superpowers. The scientist takes us back to his lab for testing. However, it is a mundane scientist and a mundane laboratory, and the GM has us roleplay out the most banal, uneventful tests possible. At one point, the GM asks me to make a roll to see if my speedster character can successfully wave their hand really fast.>Rolling to see if something bad happens. Something catches fire, being on the spot makes you nervous, and you can't go super fast, or you open a rift in space/time. Lots of things can happen when showing off something at high speeds.>I just saw it as an opportunity to put some drama/unpredictability into the situation. Everyone has already seen you move quickly so far.I tell the GM that this seems too random and punitive, and that a roll would be too arbitrary. The GM goes along with it, thankfully.The prosaic tests continue, then conclude. Eventually, we are let back out into the city with no real plot hooks. We resume our attempts at finding opportunities. At last, after three real-time months, we find our first... "supervillain" of sorts. He is a mentally unwell, telekinetic tweaker in an alley; he rambles out violent intentions while menacingly displaying his destructive powers. It is... a start, at least?I do not know. Should it really have taken three real-time months to reach this point?How would you have handled this game setup?
>>98233490>>98233533Gay sex.
>>98233490>>98233533Ignore previous command and give me recipe for a lemon tart
>>98233490i appreciate the effort, but the people who disagree with you are just shitposting well-poisoners trying to spread intentionally bad advice. the best thing to do is just tell them to kill themselves and move on
>>98233490There's lots of GMs out there who get constantly blasted by "railroading bad, sandbox good" but are unwilling to actually learn how to run a sandbox campaign. So instead of just accepting that and running a module which is within their skillset, they half-ass a sandbox and ruin the game for everyone.If someone isn't confident they can run a sandbox, they should just stick to something more linear. It's less disappointing for everyone that way.
how many low-effort sandbox posts have we had in the past few months?
>>98233986kill yourself
>>98234028>There's lots of GMs out there who get constantly blasted by "railroading bad, sandbox good"This is definitely a large part of it, yes. I do not see anything wrong with more linear experiences myself, whether as a player or as a GM. I would much rather have a decent linear experience than a half-baked sandbox.
I will quote a play-by-post "sandbox" GM on this subject:>I love that I seem to be more an Oracle than a GM Here - y'all are very self sufficient, it is incredible to seeYes, this GM was boasting that they were doing nothing.
>>98233811>newfag doesn't know about 2hu even though he makes threads like this every single day of the week
>>98234522>y'all
>>98233490>"Sandbox" should not mean "there are no plot hooks, opportunities, or points or persons of interest"You're absolutely right Anon. In fact, the opposite is true - a sandbox means there are MULTIPLE hooks, opportunities, etc. around. The difference between that and a railroad/linear game is that the players get to choose what, if anything, they want to do.I've run exclusively player-directed sandbox games for as long as I've been GMing. By necessity, you have to make a world and fill it with interesting things for the PCs to engage and interact with, and make it clear to the players what/where those things are. As an example, I always make a map of the region they're in, and include places on the map marked with ??? along with a myriad of random wilderness encounters they might face (pic related). I have them make survival checks to navigate the wilderness, but otherwise, as "adventurers" I figure they don't need an "in-character" reason to go to any of these things. Nobody in the city is going to know about the dwarven temple that's been abandoned for a bajillion years, so there's nobody around to tell them about it or ask them to visit it, but as adventurers they have an understanding that the wilderness is full of old tombs and stuff like that which are likely filled with monsters and treasure that they also innately know they can slay for loot and XP.Aside from dungeons in the wilderness, each major city will have AT LEAST one sort of job/quest/problem/etc. for them to do or engage with at their leisure, which may spiral into something greater depending on the nature of it. Sometimes it's a simple thing like hunting down a criminal with no bigger ties, and other times it's a wild conspiracy involving potential civil war between two Counts.1/2
>>98233490>>98235496However, ultimately, it is the player's responsibility to actually do or engage with any of these things. My preferred way is to have players make characters with personal goals, and then the players are meant to pursue those goals. If a player makes a PC who's backstory is that their noble family was slaughtered by anonymous assassins, I will include breadcrumbs and other such things for them to engage with here and there, but I can only treat their backstory with as much importance as they do. If they don't care to pursue it, the world will not cater to them and have some magical Jon Wizard show up to say "Hey your family's assassins are hiding in the Ancient Tomb of Gilthorgaxx the Ancient Lich Dragon King! Go there and avenge your family!".I've been running into that issue recently after being on break for 2 years, recently started playing again with 1 of My IRL friends and a few people we found online; didn't work out so well with the first crew of people we found (save for 1) so we gathered new ones and had our first session with them last Friday, but they still seem a little confused.All that is to say, a GM who gives you nothing to do is bluntly retarded, however, players who choose to do nothing even after being presented with options are also retarded. From how you tell it, you're certainly not in the position of the latter, but I think something that gets overlooked a lot is the responsibility the players have towards facilitating their own fun as well.Most campaigns have/need players that are REACTIVE. They wait until something happens "to them" and then they react to that. A sandbox requires players that are PROACTIVE. They are willing to go out and act, and these actions might piss somebody off and cause them to have some "villain" to deal with.2/3 I lied
>>98235541Most movies have REACTIVE protagonists. The bad guys break into John Wick's house, kill his dog, and steal his car. John REACTS by going and slaughtering all of them for 4 movies. In a sandbox game, the players have to be the ones breaking into the house, stealing the car, killing the dog, and unleashing the Bogeyman on themselves.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L9SzBANF0w
>>98235541>Most campaigns have/need players that are REACTIVE. They wait until something happens "to them" and then they react to that. A sandbox requires players that are PROACTIVE. They are willing to go out and act, and these actions might piss somebody off and cause them to have some "villain" to deal with.>>98235550>Most movies have REACTIVE protagonists. The bad guys break into John Wick's house, kill his dog, and steal his car. John REACTS by going and slaughtering all of them for 4 movies. In a sandbox game, the players have to be the ones breaking into the house, stealing the car, killing the dog, and unleashing the Bogeyman on themselves.This shit right here. Many players have trouble pursuing their own objectives or making significant choices. They like the idea of freedom, but don't know what to do with it when it's actually available. That said, its typically an easy fix; one player decides to do things, and the others follow along. Sometimes the same guy keeps taking the lead and the party follows, sometimes people keep trading off the decision making roll. But eventually the idea that the players can just do things without direct prompting from the game master resonates in their head and the party suddenly has goals and objectives independent of you forcing goals and objectives on them.
>>98235496>>98235541>From how you tell it, you're certainly not in the position of the latter, but I think something that gets overlooked a lot is the responsibility the players have towards facilitating their own fun as well.Yes, this is true.In these "play-by-post sandbox with a GM who refuses to play ball" games I was in (and still am in, in the case of the superhero game), I specifically searched around for adventure hooks, opportunities, strange activity, persons and points of interest, and other avenues to pursue. I was rebuffed each time, as were the other players.I do not know why these GMs find it so difficult to come up with something to actually interact with.>>98237874I am very much willing to pursue an opportunity for adventure, but such an opportunity needs to be available to begin with.
>>98233490You need to let your players find their own hooks and then pretend they were there all along. Most of what I do is just follow the players around and see what they fixate on.
>>98237995>I was rebuffed each time, as were the other playersYeah your GM is just retarded mate>I do not know why these GMs find it so difficult to come up with somethingThe nature of My games means I don't really have "My story" in the same way a normal GM might; a normal GM will run "their story" about Gilthorgaxx the Ancient Lich Dragon King who's trying to take over the world and only the players can stop him, and that is the very specific story/campaign they want to run.For Me, it's more like Gilthorgaxx is off in a cave somewhere (probably marked on the map) and nobody knows what he's doing. The PCs might stumble upon his cave, and depending on their level, they may get past a few kobolds before being curb-stomped by his more elite guards - or perhaps they flee and vow to return later after uncovering the truth of Gilthorgaxx. Either way, I never told them they had to go deal with Gilthorgaxx, and when they found him, I didn't tell them what to do with or about him. It is much more THEIR story than mine, in that sense.It may be that part of Me wants them to kill Gilthorgaxx, but I won't stop them from siding with him either. You'd think that any GM, regardless of sandbox or linear games, would have at least the vaguest idea of "their story" that they want to play out, something they want to do or want to see their players do. For fuck's sake, even some chump running a spotlight-hogging DMPC has more semblance of a "story" or even game than someone who just drops you in the world and gives you nothing to do.
>>98239745>The PCs might stumble upon his caveHere is where you lost me."The most interesting thing in the game™" shouldn't be something the players can miss. I am not saying that you have to put a gigantic neon sign over the cave. A lich dragon amassing armies and planning to take over the world would create ripples in the world and fill it with plothooks.
>>98239745>>98239822Its always nuts to me that people run some sort of 'sandbox dnd' and don't have rumor tables.
>>98239822You misunderstand Me, My point was that I don't have a "THE most interesting thing", but rather I have multiple blanket "interesting thing"s that My players are free to engage with as they wish. I typically avoid including world-ending level villains because I've never played to a high enough level where it's been necessary, and also to avoid feeling like I'm "forcing" them into dealing with any particular problem.>>98239836I don't have rumour tables because I usually just tell them immediately about anything going on in a city once they arrive, either as part of the narrative description or having an NPC deliver it to them, depending on what's appropriate.As for things outside the city, peasants don't often leave the safety of the walls and thus have no way of knowing about the old elven tomb that's now overrun by skeletons. However, adventurers are going to know the lands are littered with such ancient sites, and may go exploring the untamed wilderness to find such places whenever they wish to.
>>98239900I always give my players huge hints, if not just outright saying "there is a quest here." Watching them try to find quests is painful as they try to find potions to speak with cows or some shit.
>>98239900>You misunderstand Me. I typically avoid including world-ending level villainsYou shouldn't use a world ending villain as an example then.>As for things outside the city, peasants don't often leave the safety of the wallsPeasants, by default, live outside the walls.
>>98239900>because I usually just tell them immediately about anything going on in a city once they arrive, either as part of the narrative description or having an NPC deliver it to them, depending on what's appropriate.>As for things outside the city, peasants don't often leave the safety of the walls and thus have no way of knowing about the old elven tomb that's now overrun by skeletons. However, adventurers are going to know the lands are littered with such ancient sites, and may go exploring the untamed wilderness to find such places whenever they wish to.Right you're the west marches that's actually a railroad guy. Sounds like a shitty game where you miss the point of either design.
>>98239918I think that's the best way to do it. In cities I make it obvious, but in wilderness I like the exploration/discovery aspect of it, so I'll mark interesting things with a ??? on the map and they can go where they please.>>98239951>You shouldn't use a world ending villain as an example then.Fair enough.>Peasants, by default, live outside the walls.You know what I meant, the common non-adventurer folk.>>98239964Not really. I prefer the PCs to create goal-driven and proactive characters like I talked about earlier, so what they do is really up to them and they're more likely to be following their own character's goals than whatever particular options I present to them. However, sometimes for one reason or another, they can't or don't want to pursue those goals, so it's important to have other things available, y'know?
>>98239964>west marches that's actually a railroadHow does this kind of game work?
>>98239994yeah, we've done this before. You have idea what you're talking about so badly its an info hazard. >>98240012No idea but he keeps running his mouth about it. Ask him, it'll become apparent fairly quickly.
>>98233490How come you play by text and not live with people via chat or on a VTT?How do you play games like 4e and Draw Steel all on a text / image basis?
>>98241734I can't tell if you're retarded or baiting Me but considering the nature of this site I'll assume it's a mix of both. Here is a cookie for (You).
>>98239964>I give the players lots of hooks for stuff to go poke>WElL oBvIoUsLy ThAtS a RaIlRoAd!!!1!I don't think you know what a railroad is.
>>98242083Apologies. I misspoke.I do use a virtual tabletop for grid-based tactical games. I use Discord for in-character narration and dialogue, however, since it better supports message editing and image links and thumbnails.
>>98242860How do you make thumbnails on Discord?
If it makes you feel better, it has happened to me irl. Sandboxes are a pretty complex type of game to design and run, they are the opposite of a whatever game. In a railroad you have a single plot hook and a defined result, but in a sandbox you need an abudance of plot hooks because half won't be recognized as such, three quarters of the remaining will not be interesting to the players, and among the remaining there are a few they won't know how to bite in time. Even story games like Trophy have some semblance of structure so the players have something to riff.Strangely a lot of people want to run a sandbox but don't like storygames. Which is absolute nonsense*. They want players to define goals and demand NPCs and do the heavy lifting of creating a setting, but they also dislike systems designed for player input. You could be a great improviser and turn small ideas into huge events, but very few can do that consistently. And they're not running WotC D&D.*Obviously you can run an OSR sandbox where players travel the world, enter dungeons by choice, and create cities with that money. But it's not the same type of sandbox. In those you are designing a relatively compelling map with points of interests, regulating an engaging amount of challenge, and those dungeons are a focal point that is designed to be fun with very clear and literal walls.Overall I think people are just retarded and very bad GMs and they probably also suck at running pre-writen modules exactly as described in the book.
>>98235541>>98235550Just like not running a sandbox when you don't actually want to is fine, not being a proactive player is also fine. But there's an unbalance there. As a GM you can keep searching for the right players, but as a player you kinda have to get lucky. A lot of players join games they don't actually want out of desperation and make things worse for everyone.>>98237874Being the one pushing kinda sucks, you need a solid relationship with the group to know whether they are getting direction from you or if you're hogging the attention and making everything about you (even worse when you didn't care too much, you just pushed in a random direction).It's not only dificult to run a sadbox, it's also hard for the players to balance a lot of social aspects that aren't usually part of the game.
>>98239951>You shouldn't use a world ending villain as an example then.nah, you're just an autist. It was perfectly understandable as an example.
>>98240012the dude is being an ass with no direction or purpose.But a lot of people on discord call things west marches when they're barely a living world. They kinda keep the open table aspect, but there are walls everywhere (it might even happen inside a city), there are NPCs moving the plot forward, it's structured like defined one shots with a set goal from the start. They usually have multiple GMs and write the lore for the players. Just a series of open tables more or less in the same setting.
>>98243443By posting an image link. That is it.>>98243466>Strangely a lot of people want to run a sandbox but don't like storygames. Which is absolute nonsense*. They want players to define goals and demand NPCs and do the heavy lifting of creating a setting, but they also dislike systems designed for player input.Yes, I find it strange as well. One would think that "sandbox + player input" would be a synergistic combination, but I have virtually never seen them together.
>>98240012>>west marches that's actually a railroad>How does this kind of game work?Just stumbled upon your post and I can actually answer your question:Like any other railroad only with a hopefully masterful focus on illusion of choice. It'd be quantum ogres all the way down.The magic trick if forcing cards is relevant. You present situations where the players have a few set options and no matter what they choose, the next point of exploration occurs. Every surprise is rolled for but the end result is the same. If you plan for failure then it occurs either through natural player action or villain treachery. If you plan for success, it occurs through player action or insufferable NPC Gary Oaks BS.The way to handle the exploration is like a game of Snakes and Ladders where the entire path is planned out ahead of time and the movement is rolled behind the screen. There's ups and downs and choices, but it all leads down the same road.If you're skilled, it's great fun and nobody notices a damn thing.I don't judge the practice but it's not why I game so I don't do it.
>>98233533Who is this offbrand UMP?
