My players said I was railroading them, so I scrapped the campaign

>>50629015
Players don't know what they want.

>>50629015
You listened to your players lie. Either that, or you failed to craft a sense of player agency in your "railroad". One of the two.

Players are shitheads and sandbox is a buzzword.

Unless you literally and obviously overruled any decisions of them, you weren't railroading anyway. As long as whatever the fuck the players do still matters, it's not railroading.

>>50629015
You read bad advice, go check out sly flourish and run a module with his advice or use this book to run a custom story. It tells how make a consistent story that players control their movements within.

Hex crawls are not "sandboxes" and they are not the solution to railroading. They are a very specific type of game.

>>50629031
This, nigguh.

DM FACT:

There is no such thing as "non-railroad". Sandboxes never work, they're a garbage concept, and no one has EVER done a good "sandbox" game.

The only way to make a game good is to have a plot, and to push players to accomplish certain things within the plot.

They way you "don't railroad" is simply by letting them choose how they want to go about accomplishing things, and then you make the choice that they DIDN'T do have some sort of visible consequence on the world.

It's pretty fucking simple.
But

And this important so I need you to remember this:

NEVER ASK THE PLAYERS WHAT THEY THINK THEY WANT.

THEY ARE ALWAYS WRONG.

>>50629015
you did exactly what they said to do.
that was the mistake.

>All these plotshitters giving garbage DM advice

You didn't run a good enough hex crawl. Either the hooks were homogenous or there just weren't enough, either of which is lite-railroading anyway.

A properly run hexcrawl campaign is objectively the best of all possible campaigns. Read up even more on how OSR players do them and try again.

>>50629175
You're mixing up objective and subjective.

>>50629132
>The only way to make a game good is to have a plot, and to push players to accomplish certain things within the plot.
Strictly speaking, no, but you need some really experienced and motivated players. It is balls-bustingly impossible to find an entire team of self-motivating people.
>They way you "don't railroad" is simply by letting them choose how they want to go about accomplishing things, and then you make the choice that they DIDN'T do have some sort of visible consequence on the world.
Hold up. What you want to do is make the choice that they DID make have some sort of visible consequence on the world. Otherwise you have a bunch of confused people going around wondering why everything's actively getting worse not only despite, but BECAUSE of them doing completing goals that give no reason for them to believe they're making htings worse.
This kills the game and makes people think you're a shit DM.

>>50629015

I have one question for the OP:

How do the players in this campaign earn experience points? In other words, what specific actions are worth XP? Killing monsters? Performing (subjectively) heroic deeds? Good role-playing?

There is a reason that sandbox games usually default to GP = XP. It incentivizes exploration. You could also (and I have done this) award XP even more directly for map-hexes and dungeon-rooms explored, with bonus awards for discovering new dungeon-floors; but this winds up homogenizing the experience, making gameplay less focused and more meandering.

Awarding XP mainly for treasures found provides that uneven, "Skinner-box" type reward system: it makes the players salivate for whatever may be in the next dungeon-room, more willing to risk potential danger at the prospect of potential reward.

Long story short, OP, the essential missing component you may or may not have considered is the reward system.

>>50629215
>le subjectivity meme

I'm actually not mixing anything up. It's really simple, actually: even the most eloquently told, beautifully crafted railroad can fall flat if the hook doesn't grab a player. They'll be strung along for a ride they're just not into, regardless of how much work goes into it. Inversely, all players in all possible forms will be able to enjoy a properly run hexcrawl, because they'll always be doing something they want to do.

This makes the hexcrawl the maximally enjoyable way to run an RPG, from a purely objective point of view.

>>50629015
>I don't know what I did wrong
>I don't fucking understand what I did wrong.
I got your problem, you are playing with dumbfucks that you simply cannot please.

Solution: Play with people that are not dumbfucks.

>>50629132
Sandboxes work if you have at least one player who can set their own goals for their character and work under their own agency to push forward towards those goals. Other players can fall in line with that player or set their own goals, but it doesn't really matter at that point as long as at least one of them is driving the rest.

>>50629284
False. Different groups like different things. Some players enjoy being given a clear direction and goal and have no problems with railroading. Or maybe they feel intimidated by all the options a hexcrawl might present. Or maybe they just don't really know what they want, and an open sandbox will lead to them bumming around and not really doing anything, leading to an unfufilling experience.

The only objectively best style of game is the one you and your group have the most enjoyment with.

>>50629175
Hex crawls are generally outdated garbage beloved by a handful of players.

File: d33.jpg (35KB, 600x657px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x657px

>>50629351

Look who's never played a good game of old-school D&D.

I just let them think they're not being railroaded give them multiple paths and let them think that the choice matters even though whatever path they pick is the one I wanted them to

>>50629015
The solution to railroading is self-motivated player characters. If your players have clear ideas about what kind of story they want to play out, then a railroad is unnecessary. If your players are prepared to jump on your plot hooks and chase them further than you ever imagined, then a railroad is unnecessary. If your players are willing to get fully invested in their character's goals and engage with the high and lows of their own personal drama, then a railroad is unnecessary.

Obviously, this requires players who have a great deal of creativity, improvisational skill and acting ability. Such players are rare, so a DM usually has to provide the plot and motivation themselves, as a framework for the players to build on.

>>50629379
>Thinking old means good
Oh anon

File: railroadoing and sandboxes a GM's guide.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

posting to help out future GM's.

>>50629432

>good games of old-school D&D
>bad games of old-school D&D
>good games of new-school D&D
>bad games of new-school D&D

Well aren't you just the most adorable little dumbass?

>>50629015
Your mistake was stopping your railroading instead of making it more subtle.

>>50629284
Hexcrawls are literally a countryside-as-dungeon with all the same problems, because while is was a milestone in storytelling it is just a milestone and not the pinnacle. Every system outside D&D in the past decade have pretty much given the same GM advice dressed up slightly differently, with the clearest language being written into Dungeon World which is very approachable even if you hate the system. And just writing this probably triggers the shit out of you despite being absolutely true.

>>50629533
This. Sometimes railroading is just how you GM. Trying to GM in a way that you're uncomfortable with just leads to you being shit at it. Just dress up your railroading by having minor changes and applying quantum ogres.

>>50629015
>he fell for the sandbox meme

Players don't do well in sandboxes. You have to railroad to a point, but give them options as to which track they want to head down.

They don't have to know they all lead to virtually the same place, as long as you improvise it well enough.

>>50629015
I know what you're dealing with OP, I've played groups who like campaigns open ended in a Skyrim esque type thing.

So basically, you have to give them a goal: I usually default to a villain doing something evil that they have to stop (something so evil that it threatens the entire world so the PCs can't just ignore it). Then I let the PCs adventure on the open-ended map to get weapons, level up, and side quest as they work towards an overall goal.

This way, the PCs can side quest and bumfuck around while working towards an overall goal.

Another method I do are a couple quests in different locations that the PCs can choose to do in whatever order. For example: "This is Weapontown, here will be a quest for magical weapons. Over here is Magictown, here will be a quest for spells and spellbooks"

>>50629031
upvote

>>50629132
A sandbox CAN be done well. But it's good to have overarching plots within that sandbox.

In my experience, it can be mostly improvisation
>the players fight some cultists in that dungeon (unremarkable combat with a few 1st level fighters and an evil cleric)
>Decide one of the treasures the PC's take out is a relic the cult was seeking
>for some reason, these assholes start tracking the party
>players have to put it all together and decide what to do about it

Or maybe it's totally different, and the party made friends with the cultists, and are taken back to their temple as potential converts.

Suddenly you have a "plot" that wouldn't have existed if the players hadn't gone to that certain place and interacted with it in a certain way.

It should be a living world, not just a series of static quest nodes.

A good sandbox also usually starts small, so that stories can develop. Striking a spark anywhere can change the setting.

>>50629015
You overcorrected. You went from one extreme to the other. An on-rails plot is boring, but no plot is also boring. You can have a narrative, you just need to be flexible and willing to change it in response to player agency.

>>50629015
Players are idiots and have no idea what the fuck they want, full story at 11.

If your players ever accuse you of railroading, tell them to fuck themselves, because most groups literally require railroading or this exact scenario occurs, and almost every DM does it, they're just better at hiding it.

Don't get me wrong, I love my group, but every attempt at sandbox I've made with them has crashed and burned because they end up feeling like they have no direction despite me having to put in three times as much work to accommodate for the fact that I can't predict where they're going to end up as well.

What this doesn't mean is that railroading is a GOOD thing. It is merely a NECESSARY thing, and while it is definitely something that can and should be used if your group requires it, it's up to you where you draw the line, and you shouldn't railroad more than you need to. It's a toss up between maintaining a coherent story and allowing your players to feel like they have freedom, and that's where your balancing act lies.

There can be a happy medium. Some sandboxier campaigns have an overarching plot or general motivation. There might be an ancient evil, but there can be a bunch of his minions that you fight at your own leisure, following whichever plot hooks interest you the most.

You weren't in the wrong though OP. Those guys clearly didn't know what they were going on about.

>>50630304
Sandbox just means you don't pitch a fit when the players take things in an unexpected direction.

And one of the great strengths of D&D is that you can key a map with a few monsters out of a book (plus treasure), and have a night's play ready to go. You don't need to graph every NPC or location in painstaking detail--just have a few tools at hand for generating stuff on the fly.

You can also tell players you need to plan out the next session, and require that they give you a rough plan of their intentions for the next session. I think a lot of people forget that it's not just the GM's job to cater to the players every whim--if they want open ended exploration, it's partly their responsibility to make that possible.

Even just having a list of a couple dozen unused names is fantastically helpful. If the players decide to invite random blacksmith #204 to dinner, I can pull his name out of a hat, along with names for his wife and three kids.

>>50629015

>Listening to players
>Literally ever

File: 1476435352033.jpg (33KB, 232x173px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 232x173px

If you set up a sandboxy setting where things moved on their own outside player input (like the autoplay-sandbox in but had the campaign involve the players being part of some police/military/etc. group where they'd have orders to carry out (not always being ordered and having free time to pursue individual interests and plot hooks, but occasionally being told "you have to go to [x] with the intention of doing [x]" by the powers in charge) and consequences for failing or not accepting the orders, would that be too railroady, assuming the party was all on board of being part of that group and being ordered around in such a way I've never GM'd before and have been thinking about the potential campaign I might do for my group. I value player agency but have been told by GMs I've played with that I have a habit of driving the plot forward more than average, which makes me worried that I'd end up railroading too much if I have a group that doesn't play the way I do.

>>50629132
>There is no such thing as "non-railroad". Sandboxes never work, they're a garbage concept, and no one has EVER done a good "sandbox" game.

Total horseshit.

>>50629782
>Players don't do well in sandboxes

On the contrary, player can do well, but doing well in a sandbox is a skill. Some players git gud at it, others just nope out. OP's players haven't gotten into the sandbox groove yet. Or maybe he's running it poorly, which also sounds plausible -- it's tough to run it right, you need to have interesting stuff happening around the map for the players to see and get involved in.

>>50629015
>I don't know what I did wrong
You gave people what they SAID they wanted rather than what they wanted. They wanted some wiggle room and side quests around a linear core story like The Witcher 3 has, not a full on Roguelike,

>>50629031
First post best post

>>50629015
Eh. Prolly is actually your fault. There's a fuckload of gray area between railroading and sandbox.

Railroading is when your player says "I want to do this" and you say "that doesn't make any sense--your character wouldn't do that." Or you put obstacles in the way specifically to handicap them into solving problems in the particular manner that you pre-planned that the problem be solved (the "Oh we have to get to the next level of the dungeon? K I get a pickaxe" solution should generally be viable, if stupid).

Sandbox only works if the PCs are willing to make their own plots.

If they want to be kings of a region, or invent the tank and build super war machines to crush the world or be the best damn spice traders in the world you can have fun. If they're a bunch of retards who want to kill stuff and collect loot they should fuck off to Runescape.

>>50631854

Completely correct.

>>50631968
>If they're a bunch of retards who want to kill stuff and collect loot they should fuck off to Runescape.
I really hate this attitude and it keeps people out of a good hobby. Explore kill loot repeat is perfectly fun in P&P too if done well. Stop acting like your preferred fun is more legitimate than theirs.

If nothing else, most newcomers to tabletop games nowadays come from video game RPGs and probably need to be introduced to the concepts in a familiar way before they can start to take full advantage of what P&P has to offer. And it's not like D&D didn't have that kinda gameplay long before Runescape, either.

>>50632024
>Explore kill loot repeat is perfectly fun in P&P too if done well
Not for the DM. You can automate the tables, so play without one.

>>50632024
Yeah I think you're just responding to an internet-expert. No one who actually plays RPGs categorically rules out explore, kill, loot adventures. Wraith the Oblivion and Mouseguard both have them, for shit's sake. I can't think of an RPG that doesn't.

>I don't know what I did wrong
>I don't fucking understand what I did wrong.

You picked your players wrong, they're a fucking bunch of idiots. Scrap them and reuse your campaigns.

>>50632024
Except the DM is functionally useless if all the players do is
>find dungeon
>kill goblin
You can roll the damn tables and auto-gen a dungeon to delve.

>>50632096
>>50632196
Have either of you actually DMed before?

Psych--no one needs to read your lies to the contrary. The obvious answer is "no."

Designing dungeons is fun as fuck. Putting challenges into them and watching how players cope with them is fun as fuck. Giving them loot so that they get back to town and then wander around wondering "what kind shit can I stir up with this?" is fun as fuck.

In fact, doing so is so much fun, for DMs, that DMs got together and expanded the games into what we now call RPGs, almost-entirely because the "got back with loot, now what?" part was radical.

File: grogmag2.png (3MB, 2086x2486px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2086x2486px

>>50629015
It's a style. It takes practice.
For you AND the players.

You're not used to this, so that's fine.
The main thing to ensure is that the player's actions have consequences. If you've got your sandbox running right, you can basically just take a step back and let the players chase the tail of their own consequences.
But that's by the by, you've read the advice and stuff. It's practice.

Your players have been trained to follow a plot, though. They've learned to expect a certain thing. If they're not used to a sandbox, they won't have that internal sense of "we have to find the fun".
In a sandbox the players can putter around doing boring shit if they want. That's not your job. Your job is to keep the world moving and the factions fighting and the large-scale events happening.
If they want to get something done, that's down to THEM.

You're the world. They're the people in the world.
If they want direction they have to direct themselves.
They have true agency.

That's the sandbox ideal.

>>50630725
That's not a sandbox, a sandbox is an open expanse with toys littered throughout and no established direction beyond a vague end goal. A true sandbox doesn't even have a goal. A sandbox is not "when you don't railroad."

>>50629015
easy solution: make a railroad but offer them 2 ways to go about most things. Gives them a sense of control without spreading yourself too thin.

"Don't railroad us" just means "make us think we have a choice in what happens." If they actually do, that's great, but they don't have to.

>>50632242
>Designing dungeons is fun as fuck. Putting challenges into them and watching how players cope with them is fun as fuck.
For you, sure.

>Giving them loot so that they get back to town and then wander around wondering "what kind shit can I stir up with this?" is fun as fuck.
For you, maybe. That's not why I DM, and certainly not my goal when sitting at the table.

>In fact, doing so is so much fun, for DMs, that DMs got together and expanded the games into what we now call RPGs
...what

Nigga, are you really this retarded that you're saying "This is so much fun I love it can't you see how this is the best?" and pretending that's an argument?

>>50632615

He's not the one that started the "my way of DMing is correct, yours is stupid" train. See the folks he's responding to, with their blanket denials that any DM could ever enjoy that sort of thing.

>>50629015
Anon, you know why listening to focus groups lead to terrible products? People don't know what they want.

Also, there is a middle ground between no choice and no direction. Look at something like Ocarina or Time. There's an overriding story, but you can do different parts of it in different orders at a pace of your choosing.

>>50629015
As basically everyone already told you your mistake was to listen to your players. Sandboxes are shit and basically impossible in the majority of groups. A good DM is one that can railroad while giving the illusion of player agency. A good way to do that is to plan a session while keeping details variable. This way while the players can choose if they want to go to the swamp, to the mountain or to the desert either way they'll find a tomb with the cultists that you want them to find, just dressed differently.

>>50632777
I know this is bait, but palette shifting is still shitty behaviour.
You're still imposing your will on the players.

And just because you're bad at running a sandbox doesn't mean that everyone is.

>>50629015
A million small ideas won't be as intriguing as a single solid idea. It sounds more like your original campaign lacked flexibility. You can run a railroady story without anyone feeling like they're being railroaded by being ready to rewrite your adventure at any point. If you need to cut the session short after two hours because you need to rewrite the story around an extremely insignificant detail that players spent most of the session investigating, do it. If you play really long sessions, break out a board game for an hour or two while you fix shit.

Obviously put your foot down when you need to, let them feel like they hit a dead end, but give them a little something at the end of that dead end to keep them going.

If your campaign can't be written around a band of chucklefucks inventing a pressure bomb to stop a plot-relavent pickpocket, THEN your adventure is too railroady.

File: PerilsOfPaulineTiedToRailwayTracks4.jpg (23KB, 360x248px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 360x248px

You have to tie your players to the train tracks, but blindfold them so they don't know it.

Make every choice they make lead to what you want done.

It's the only way to win at DMing.

The only way to make a successful sandbox is to combine aspects of a plot-driven game and a sandbox game.
>There's this bbeg who's going to attack the land and you should stop him
>Here's this world, decide how to do it

>>50633254
>The only way

Not true. Also

>The BBEG meme

Video game trash.

>>50629015
I always end up with a balancing act, the players start on a railroad until they get tired of where it's going so they blowup the track, then they wander around in the sandbox for a while until they want to get back on the train

>>50632831
>I know this is bait, but palette shifting is still shitty behaviour.

What? No. "Palette Shifting" is literally one of the best strategies a GM can adopt.

The players can *go* wherever they want, but beat for beat an encounter that's been mindfully crafted will always be more engaging for the players than rolling a random encounter table.

>>50633311
>Not true

Yes, true. If you're not going to put pressure directly on the players, you NEED to give the world itself pressure. An impending war, or apocalypse, or raid, or something. Otherwise, the PCs will faff about endlessly, forever. The world needs to be running forward so the PCs can bump into it.

>>50629015
>I don't know what I did wrong

They don't want to FEEL railroaded.
Watch the second Matrix movie. Particularly the bit where they bang on about 'the illusion of choice'. That is the important thing to take away from this experience.

You were telling them where to go and what to do, instead of letting them think they wanted to go there. Or putting things where they wanted to go.
There is a middle ground between linear JRPG with hours-long cutscenes and traipsing through a cave for hours, and open-world western RPGs where you're so busy building houses and brewing potions and grinding skills that you forget the world is in danger.

You need to occupy that middle ground.
They want to feel like they're driving the plot. Highway them instead of railroad. Tourist traps, other traffic, pee breaks, detours, shortcuts, etc. One direction, one goal, but a few choices of how to get there.

>>50632643
I never said "your way is stupid"

I said, objectively, sandboxes are shit. Can they be fun? Sure, anything can be fun. But they're still shit, especially when you make your rule "I will never, ever ever ever railroad in any way because anything resembling a plot is evil"

>>50633443
>an encounter that's been mindfully crafted will always be more engaging for the players than rolling a random encounter table.

Maybe for you, but I have a talent for improv, and a tendency to overthink shit so overplanning is my single worst enemy. My and my players favorite scenarios have all been things I did off-the-cuff, because when I do that I generate exciting battles, where when I prep an "encounter" it winds up lacking the spontaneity and starts feeling canned.

>>50633481

Players skilled at sandboxes don't need much of that from you, that's for playing with folks who've been trained by story-heavy DMs to need hand-holding.


>>50633498
>anything resembling a plot is evil

Said nobody ever. Plots in a sandbox should emerge from play, they shouldn't be squashed by the DM because he's some kind of strawman idiot.
Sandboxes, run well, are some of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.

File: 1376184081045.jpg (52KB, 443x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 443x720px

I think you needed a very flexible antagonist with a tangible, malicious goal.
If you do this, OP, always think like the antagonist when planning your sessions. You'll want the players dead, but you want them to challenge you at the same time.

>>50633565
>that's for playing with folks who've been trained by story-heavy DMs to need hand-holding.
>Anything but a sandbox at complete stasis with no big events currently happening in the world is hand holding

Kek

>>50629175
>Read up even more on how OSR players do them and try again.
I don't think there's a more obvious way to say "I don't like what you said, but I can't actually think of anything to say to rebut it."

>>50633565
Different person here and I disagree with you, improv might be fun for you guys and gets some laughs, but I'd say for most avid DnD players, it'll be pretty obvious if the encounter wasnt crafted. It always lacks depth.

A good well-crafted encounter will always be better than a good improvised encounter.
To the players, its all new content either way.

>>50633753

>implying things nobody said

Point is, players don't naturally just stand there and wait to be told what they should do. Play with some kids sometime -- my last such experience the kids practically ran me over in their enthusiasm to get out into the imaginary space and DO SHIT. There wasn't any semblance of aimlessness or "what now?" to be seen. That's a trait that I've only ever seen in older players who've been trained by video games and story-focused DMs that they need to look to the man behind the screen to point them in the "right" direction to find the game.

>>50633311
>Video game trash.
Alright, what motivates the main plot for your games?

Have you ever watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, anon? Because I think that's the ideal format for a game. The most important takeaway point is that you're not constantly going after a single objective. Each episode has its own objective, and most of them are independent. But every couple of episodes in the first half of the season, the same asshole is behind what just happened. Either they just foiled one of his plots, or his plot crossed over theirs, or he just sent someone to kill them because they keep fucking things up for him. Then things come to a head, and the series starts building up to a final confrontation with him.

That's how you do a good sandbox campaign. Throw a couple of different plot hooks at your players, and whichever one they reacted to the best, that's their new nemesis. They start finding evidence they're behind every third or so plot they come across, and they'll naturally start pursuing that nemesis. Now you start coming up with plot hooks based on how they go after the nemesis instead of just what they naturally look into. Then give them a satisfying conclusion, and viola - a perfect sandbox campaign.

>>50633833
Well why not sandbox them until they pick a plot then go from there?

File: scratch-head2.jpg (88KB, 624x390px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 624x390px

>ITT: /tg/ doesn't "get" RPGs.

File: Always lucky, sometimes happy.png (138KB, 454x416px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 454x416px

>>50629031
First post is like always, best post.
>>50629015
OP, whenever you think of an average player, imagine yotsuba/any other <6 year old. That's your average players knowledge of what they like/dislike, capability to make their own decisions in games, and general attention span.

>>50633565
>Players skilled at sandboxes don't need much of that from you, that's for playing with folks who've been trained by story-heavy DMs to need hand-holding.

>Players don't need stress or drama pushing the game forward because buzzwords

Shove a FATE rulebook up your ass until you die of colon perforation you dumb fucking hipster faggot.

>>50634138
Competently skilled players can readily create their own stress and drama without the GM pushing it on them arbitrarily, you ignoramus.

>>50634014
>Alright, what motivates the main plot for your games?
The personal goals of my player characters.

>>50634104
You can't just say something like that without explaining which of these two disparate sides your weighing in on.

>>50629015
Players are exactly like women, Anon.
They're just ________Stupid_______

>>50634197
So do you just have all their goals in the same place or do you just put the spot light onto one player at a time for the sessions it takes to resolve their shit then have that player make a new character because they have no real reason to stay?

>>50634223
Usually the players have a goal that they're united in because I have a session 0 where my players make their characters together like a good gm

>>50634259
And what if a player has a different goal?

From my perspective as a GM a "sandbox" is to a degree merely an illusion due to limited resources as a GM. I will describe the situation then describe how it was responded to on /tg/.

The players leave the town and there is a fork in the road. One direction leads through a swamp to a logging community. The other direction leads to the coast to a porn town. We shall refer to the first as Path A and the second as Path B. I as a GM have only prepared one encounter with a group of bandits. If the players travel down either Path A or B they will encounter these bandits. The players know that there are bandits in the area.

This is an example of equality of process and inequality of outcome. I as a GM with limited resources will not have all the infinite paths branching out with unique material, because to a player perspective there is at no point where material loops back in on itself and repeats (they only see the material I prepare once).

I keep lists of encounters, NPCs, shops, etc. for this purpose.

The response I received last time was that this robbed the players of meaningful choice and was railroading. I personally disagree, and even if I do agree it does not matter as the players, from their perspective, never see the strings.

I do not know how I can be expected to craft an essentially infinite number of branching pathways.

>>50634279
Well you see, because the player characters all made a unifying goal to keep the party together, they have enough camaraderie to spend a few sessions helping their friends accomplish any sort of personal goals they have on top of that.

As an added bonus, because I'm not shoving a man plot with some BBEG down their throat every other session, they get to pursue those at their own pace.

>>50634328
And if any of the player's goals is to kill someone in particular are they just always weak fuckers with no skills?

>>50634319
>The response I received last time was that this robbed the players of meaningful choice and was railroading.
This is true.

>It does not matter as the players, from their perspective, never see the strings.
It's a crutch. It's not hurting you in the moment, but your ability to improv in other, more critical situations suffers for it.

>I do not know how I can be expected to craft an essentially infinite number of branching pathways.
Random encounter table by terrain

>>50634173

What you are calling "competently skilled players" are actually "GMs trying to make a game when their GM refuses to make one."

If players were capable of what you're claiming, they'd be GMs.

>>50634392
>Random encounter table by terrain
Not that anon, but how do random encounter tables not rob the players of meaningful choice?
I mean, the players' action have no bearing whatsoever on the results of the table.

Why can't sandbox and railroad be intermixed?

Start your PCs with a plot hook, try to get them invested in the world and the story. But if something starts dragging at their attention, take the pressure off the main plot a little and give them enough room to pursue this other interest. If they want to fall off the main plot entirely, find a way to do so - this is a story and a game at the end of the day, you don't need to actually have the world end if they don't stop the lich and decide to make cheese instead.

>>50634539
>If players were capable of what you're claiming, they'd be GMs.

All players are capable of it. All players have the makings of a GM -- maybe not a great one, but most people can learn to be a decent GM with enough practice.
Quit looking down your nose -- if you expect more, you'll get more.

>>50634392
>This is true.
Is your destination not meaningful choice? The port and the logging camp are different outcomes with different stories. Merely you received the same encounter along the way. Player choice impacted the story and the outcome.

>It's a crutch. It's not hurting you in the moment, but your ability to improv in other, more critical situations suffers for it.
Improv is to be supported by actual work. I am not talking about characters and stories (which should be a mix). I mean names and stats. Improved stats often lead GMs to either fudge or create unbalanced encounters, or worse only pretend to have stats.

>Random encounter table by terrain
This eliminated meaningful choice and is still equality of journey, merely more varied.

>>50634610

That's how most good DMs do things, actually. You can make a sandbox good. You can make a story-focused game good. You can even make a total railroad good -- people buy tickets for rollercoasters, after all.
But most folks will use a bit of this or a bit of that. And that's great too.

Railroad and Sanbox both seem to be terms that /tg/ has essentially made meaningless.

Railroad does not mean linear, it means that player choice is robbed of them in a obtrusive fashion. Having a story is not a railroad, nor is consequences. Telling players "you can't do X because reasons" is. Letting players do things and suffering the consequences constitutes meaningful choice.

Sandbox is merely when you allow players to create their own story and goals and find it for themselves. Often players can not play in a sandbox because they lack meaningful motivation as people to actually direct their own story.

>>50634682
>>50634392
>This eliminated meaningful choice and is still equality of journey, merely more varied.
I will clarify further. I am a big advocate for not using random encounters. As I said I have lists.

Drawing from lists for what is appropriate for the moment creates a far more meaningful and coherent narrative than random encounters.

I brought this up in the last time this was argued as well, and received the response that I as the GM should not decide what is a meaningful narrative and leave it up to random rolls. I disagree with this.

File: this post right here.gif (446KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 300x186px

>>50634714

Whaddyaknow. This train of "you gm WRONG!" shitposting is starting to produce some actual good posts.

File: 1480565952110.png (158KB, 348x263px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 348x263px

>>50629015
>Wanted a more sandbox game where I can travel to all the places of the map without some heavily-guided order
>completely self-motivated and willing to do and pursue shit that interest the character
>Will actively work with the DM to help him get ideas for what kind of plots I'd be balls to the wall into
>Gave plenty of backstory for the DM to use
>He pushed us into his narrative, now we are one with the rails
>I don't like it
>I didn't want this narrative at all

You did alright OP, you just have some shitty players. As long as you made over-arching plots as well as minor quests, you couldn't have done a single thing else.

>>50634217
>doctor is my baby a player or a dm?

>>50634682
>Improv is to be supported by actual work. I am not talking about characters and stories (which should be a mix). I mean names and stats. Improved stats often lead GMs to either fudge or create unbalanced encounters, or worse only pretend to have stats.
And this right here is why I love Apocalypse World and a good deal of the translated JRPGs we have.

Apocalypse World gives you a suite of tools and rules that allow you to improvise a proper sandbox.
Ryuutama, Tenra Bansho Zero, etc. don't even bother to pretend that they could be used for a sandbox. They are clear and up-front about the fact that there are rails to follow and how you can still make that train ride a meaningful experience without trying to derail it.

So what I've learned from this thread is:

>good driven stories rely on GM competency
>good sandboxes rely on Player competency
>competency in both make the promised land

>>50635069
More for what direction it leans. Story driven is 65% GM and 35% players. Sandbox is 65% players and 35% GM.

That being said, the GM will always be putting in more effort than the players, for the most part.

Someone else I have to say is that, as a GM, don't bend over backwards for players. They are the abundant resource and you the limited. Some people buy into the whole "you're there to make sure your players have fun", the thing is you're also there to have fun yourself. Don't change how you GM to appease people you don't even know because you can always find players to play the type of game you want to run. Thank whoever doesn't work out for participating and wish them luck in a new game rather than keep around someone who doesn't like your style.

>Campaigns can be only be either: "One Story, One Path, One Rail" or "Chaotic box of directionless random points."

False dichotomy faggots get out. It's the player's job to know what the hell they want, and the GM's job to lead them towards it at a reasonable pace, with various engaging twists and turns.

>>50629782

The trick to sandboxes is forcing everyone to write down clear goals.

>>50629015
You should have read How to be a GURPS GM instead of random articles in the internets.

>>50635189
No the GM is also there to tell the story they want to tell. I often prefer to get rid of players who don't want the genre of story I want to tell rather than switch genres.

I mean for players who want intrigue when I am running a military campaign or can't handle horror when I want to run horror.

I as a GM am there to tell the kinds of stories I enjoy.

>>50634319
>a porn town.
Well, that's one way to get the players interested.

>>50629015
Trick is the Illusion of the sandbox/choice.
You give them the new bioware treatment.
Enough situations and choices not to look like a railroad but there already is ending A,B and C.
Unless they do something so amazing it requires a rewrite but that is generally rare.

>>50629015
>He fell for the player agency meme.
Every good story is railroading. The trick is making it LOOK like it isn't.
Being a good GM is like being a good stage magician. Misdirection, Mentalism, and Forces are your bread and butter.

Plot hook or helpful thing sitting in [TownA] and you want your players to get there? Make them want to get there. They don't want it? Make it look like they do. They insist on going to [TownB]? Oh well, the plot point was there the entire time!

new players won't even notice the seams. Veteran players will notice the seams but appreciate the effort to hide it.

>>50629049
This. Players (well, people) usually have no idea what the fuck they want. They typically want a strong plot with preplanned events happening in order, but they don't want to feel like that's happening.

On the rare occasion I get players like that, I tell them that I have a particular thing planned and they're welcome to do that or have me ad-lib a (likely inferior) adventure for them. I also tell them they're welcome to request specific types of adventures and I'll usually make them happen within the next few sessions.

>>50634319
>If the players travel down either Path A or B they will encounter these bandits
>I keep lists of encounters, NPCs, shops, etc. for this purpose.

So, you re-use stuff and recycle things no matter what the players choose?

I do similar, and add local flavour. For example, Path A's bandits will be wearing red hats, as is the fashion in Town A. Path B's bandits will be wearing blue hats, as is the fashion in town C where they're getting supplies from.

If I need a conflict, one happens and has always been happening in the area. If the PCs need to go afield, they get a choice of afields to go to, and I flesh out the one they go for.
Over the years, my worldbuilding has gone from Tolkien-esque intricate worlds to a rough map with some mountains and rivers pencilled in, and big blobs marking out 'SURLY MOUNTAIN DWARVES', 'JUNGLE FULL OF BROWN ELVES THAT ARE RACIST', 'WARMONGERING ORC TRIBES', and 'HUMAN CITY'. Shit gets fleshed out as I need it, often on the fly. I write it down after it becomes relevant; until it's told to the players, it's subject to change.

>>50635413
>GM is also there to tell the story they want to tell. I often prefer to get rid of players who don't want the genre of story I want to tell rather than switch genres.

I should've stated that the players and the GM agreed to tell the same/similar story. I thought that was assumed. Yes, a GM that wants throne room morally-grey politicking and Players that want a simple, pulpy, good guys beat up bad guys adventure won't get along. I'd hope the gaming group would talk this out and not strong arm the other party into playing a style they abhor.

File: Dragon271.png (473KB, 980x554px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 980x554px

>>50634211

Are you kidding? It's pretty obvious that the majority of fa/tg/uys here buy into that 1985-and-later GMing philosophy that says, essentially, (paraphrasing Gygax here of all people:) a GM only rolls dice for the sound they make.

Illusionism, quantum ogres, adjusting encounters on-the-fly to fit the PCs, tailoring treasures to fit the PCs (because, you know, if you make a kusari-gama specialist fighter, the DM is thereby obligated to put +1, +2, +3, &c. versions of that weapon in his dungeons…), "puzzles" with no solution until the PCs come up with something that sounds good, "mysteries" with no true culprit until the PCs fixate on their best assumption… all fair game, apparently, as long as the players remain blissfully ignorant of the maestro's backstage machina.

It's bullshit. It's the difference between truly "artful" and merely "artificial". And it's a minor tragedy that, because this mode is the norm, the bulk of role-players will in fact never know how good a properly gamey game of D&D can be.

>>50629351
Disclaimer: I am interested in OSR, although I've never run a campaign of it, and cut my TRPG teeth on AD&D. I've never played a campaign of an OSR system either, unless AD&D itself counts. I'm honestly not sure.

What exactly do you mean by "outdated"? Technologies become outdated when something is developed that is strictly better than what came before, but the basic models of TRPGs -- role play as a character with an array of stats, roll dice to randomly generate results of uncertain occurances -- has been pretty much set in stone from the beginning. If anything, OSR hexcrawls seem on their faces to be a more fundamental version of this, but that doesn't mean that they're "outdated." It doesn't seem to make sense to call a kind of RPG "outdated" when the fundamentals of that RPG are exactly the same compared to modern RPGs. Could you elaborate more on what you meant by this?

>>50634935
>Doctor places the baby on the examination table and gives him a set of dice
>Baby takes the dice out, pops the d8 in his mouth, and starts rolling the d20 over and over again
>"What does it mean, doctor? Players and DMs both use dice..."
>The doctor shakes his head. "It looks like he's a DM. He's hiding the d8 to keep us in suspense. If he were a player, he'd be trying to stack them into a little tower."
>The mother sobs. "Oh, isn't there anything we can do for him?"
>The doctor hands a chart to a nurse and moves toward the door. "I'm sorry. The condition is terminal."

>>50629059
This. True best post.

File: DMing.png (44KB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1152x648px

>>50636794
the only difference between "unacceptable" amounts of fudging and "acceptable" levels is how much satisfies a particular DM's autism. In either case of "the dice fall as they fall" and "the dice fall as the DM wills it" if players are immersed it really doesn't matter.

A DM is only human, you need to realize what an acceptable level of prep to improvisation is for you, because if your players are properly immersed, it really won't matter to them if you never rolled a single die.

>>50637063
>End is predetermined
>'Good DM'
What the fuck is going on in that image.

>>50637182
I dunno about you but I design all my campaigns by first thinking of a really cool/fun final fight and work backwards. Obviously a tremendous amount of variables will alter the actual specifics of it but you're just going to have a meandering mess of a campaign if you don't know what the end goal is

>>50637182

>Give players a Slay The Lich quest
>"DUDE WTF WE HAD TO FIGHT A LICH AT THE END RAIIILROAAAD"

Consider suicide.

>>50636794
Well, what's wrong with that? The things you listed off sound like they'd make for a more fun adventure for the party - aside from the mystery and puzzle thing. Otherwise, being able to tailor the adventures to the PCs, making the more or less challenging and making sure they always find loot they might like, sounds like a good deal.

>>50637182
>DM says "your quest is to kill the lord of evil"
>you fight the lord of evil at the end of the last session
>what railroading bullshit is this

>>50636936

>seriously engaging a dumb shitposter

You're a braver man than I, Gunga Din.

>>50629031
wrong make stuff happen around them have a bunch of things on a bounty board until they find something interesting. have robbers mug someone in front of them they don't have to act if they don't want to.

ITT: Illusionist DMs make excuses for their shit and maybe they even convince themselves

>>50638019
>*Simulationist DMs cry and hug their random encounter tables while everyone laughs at them

fixed for you

>>50638019
>pretending illusionist DMing is a bad thing
Fiction is all about illusions, anon.

File: 1340433133397.jpg (103KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 384x313px

>>50636794
>Illusionism, quantum ogres, adjusting encounters on-the-fly to fit the PCs, tailoring treasures to fit the PCs (because, you know, if you make a kusari-gama specialist fighter, the DM is thereby obligated to put +1, +2, +3, &c. versions of that weapon in his dungeons…), "puzzles" with no solution until the PCs come up with something that sounds good, "mysteries" with no true culprit until the PCs fixate on their best assumption

Yeah, anyway, this is all really good DM advice and I would recommend doing all these things if you're planning to run a game.

File: rollercoaster.jpg (71KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x512px

>>50629015
Consumers are idiots. They have no idea what they really want, thye just arbitrarily like or dislike thigns based on whatever they are told they should like or dislike.

Take coffee for example. If I was to *ask* what kind of coffee a person likes, as a survey, I would get an answer somewhere along the line of
>"A rich, dark roast"
But, if i lay out all the basic ingredients, and ask someone to make a coffee the way they like it, what actually comes out is
>A weak, milky brew

Coffee tastes pretty bad. the overwhelming majority of drinkers dilute the stuff until it's just bitter milk and drink *that*. but "rich, dark roast" sounds LUXURIOUS and that SELLS.

Likewise: your players have learned that "railroading: is a terribly bad awful thing that is no fun at all. Like a housewife cutting Gluten out of her diet for absolutely no reason, they are now strongly opposed to the *concept* of guidance.

However, given what they want, they are directionless, and just kinda... bored. Free reign over an entire setting and none of them have any personal objectives or connections to make it interesting.

So, you, as a GM, now get to learn how to put players into a plot without their awareness. You must become a master of "say Yes or throw dice," and "move the note from the body to the chest".

>>50638166
I fuggen hate rollercoasters and I know that I hate coffee and I enjoyed the sandbox games I have played in. Though i find sandbox games work best if you play it with a friend who knows you really well and have your characters work on plans together.

>>50638166
>Implying I don't drink medium roast espresso with a single cube of of muscovado sugar

Anon pls.

>>50637182
>want to reach a town
>Bad DM: only lets you take the railroad, everywhere else leads to ditches or lightning or something
>insane DM: EVERY DIRECTION IS RIGHT, but you end up in a random town, maybe not the one you were intending to go to
>Good DM: you can reach your destination by train, boat, bus, or plane

File: 1480762952431.png (171KB, 550x466px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 550x466px

>All these shit DMs trying to desperately to justify their utter inability to tell a collaborative story

>>50639058
All these dedicated dms trying to learn more about their craft, from other dms.

>>50639058

>Another nogames /tg/ memer trying to get actual GMs to buy into the "players want to be mini-GMs" meme

>>50639058
and tell me, o wise anon, how DO you tell a collaborative story?

>>50639273
Well for starters WITH the players, and not by having them fall into roles in your prewritten story like you'd place words in madlibs.

File: 1481079539998.jpg (33KB, 398x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 398x500px

>>50629289
This.
I was in the same boat as you, OP, and as soon as I started giving shit players the boot I found out I wasn't an objecively shit GM after all, I just had a bunch of idiots in my party. Now I get all the player activity I want and the criticisms I need.

Even if they're your friends you have to get rid of them.

>>50638144

>game

Sure thing, Mr. DeMille, whatever you say.

Your lead is ready for her closeup, by the way.

>>50637015
>the condition is terminal
>not the condition is critical

>>50629284
>all players in all possible forms will be able to enjoy a properly run hexcrawl, because they'll always be doing something they want to do

Unless they don't want to do a hexcrawl. How can you even type a statement that self-contradicting without realizing it?

>>50629015
Provide plot hooks and importantly options. Player characters see a world with lots of things happening, that all demand attention, and choose what to act on and how to act. Then the world changes in response to their actions.

Plan out lots of plot threads that are happening in the world, and how they will go down if players don't interact with them. Plan what the most likely paths the players may go down if they pick up on that plot thread.

If you just have a complete and utter sandbox with a bunch of events where you don't railroad at all, it gets boring, players do something and don't feel like there was any point to it or like they're not going in any direction. But railroading gets bad when players feel like they don't have choice and input, when there's a path the GM clearly intends for them to take. The GM should provide them with interesting scenarios without a clear direction to go in, and then support whatever decision the players make, providing a new scenario directly based on their choices.

It's not the easiest thing in the world, but being a good GM's hard, it takes a lot of work and a lot of natural talent for improve and crafting a good story. You have to figure out a lot of individual moving pieces, really understand them, instinctively know how they will react to any event, and have a knack for figuring out the most interesting directions to take a story at any moment, even when players throw you a curveball and go in a direction you don't expect.

It's hard work, really hard work, takes a ton of quick thinking and creativity, but your players will love you for it.

>>50631968
This. Games I've played in that were sandboxes went great. Games I've run that were sandboxes were disasters. It's entirely player dependent.

>>50639829
To simplify: present a situation with multiple, equally valid options. Based on player response and how they resolve the situation, present a new situation with multiple options. Repeat.

And it doesn't HAVE to be a perfect tree with hundreds of unique paths. You can cheat a lot, have multiple options really lead to the same place, with maybe a few different details, as long as it doesn't FEEL like it to the players. You can also be clever and rework ideas you had for paths the players didn't follow so that you can reuse them down the line, stuff like that.

>>50635109
this is really good advice, actually.
It's ok to be a bit selfish, run a game that's fun for you first and the players second.
Doing the opposite is the road to burnout.

File: 1481025648901.jpg (67KB, 528x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 528x960px

>All these fags treating DMing like writing a book where everything has to be written up ahead of time including the ending
>Not realizing improv is the way to go 85% of the time and the other 15% of the time you only ever have to plan at most a session or two ahead
>all this complaining about sandboxes being too hard because of all the possible choices when they actually take less work than the average than planning a railroad

>>50629015
i always give them a fixed starting point (f.e. you are a bunch of mercenaries and you are working for the town X) and a more or less vague main quest.

the most important thing to avoid railroading is that you dont plan on how the campaign goes. players will ALWAYS fuck up a rigidly planned story, for them it's like a script they never read and never give a fuck about.

other than that, make up a bunch of places, quests and people first and flesh it out once the players take an interrest in it.

and try to make these things attractive to the players, by either making it important to them from a roleplaying or from a player perspective.

>>50640490
additionally, in a pure-sandbox game you need at least one player who can set in-character goals by himself and you need to give the players enough knowledge about everything until they can basicly act and move around like one the world's actual inhabitants.

>>50629015
>I don't know what I did wrong

"You" didn't do anything because your story didn't fucking happen.

How convenient of your players to quote-for-quote complain about lacking the exact thing you gave them before.

You're a liar trying to get upboats and 4chan gold with your epic totally real story bro, which obviously did not happen. The fact you've already got such an active thread proves you've been successful. Please enjoy it, faggot.

>>50636794

>Claims to be an authority that knows 'how good a properly gamey game of D&D can be' but doesn't state it in any way.

File: TracksintheSand1.3.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50629456
Here's the slightly updated version.

>>50637638
>What's wrong with that?

It's not what you can actually call a "game."

Now, I want to clarify that that viewpoint DOES have some good points - in many ways the GM does have to manipulate things behind the screen to be conducive to a good adventure. But some GMs look at their games like it's a "story" and they are the writers, and the players are just being led through said story by the hand. The videogame comparison would be Half-Life; if you ever play through Episode 1 with the dev commentary on you'll note just how carefully they manipulate even where the player is looking (so the neat set-piece will get seen) so they can tell their ~story.~ With time-out on the perfectly linear path to solve ~puzzles~ of course.

This is effectively how writers work when writing a novel - the reader has no agency whatsoever, so manipulating the reader, and their emotions, is the only option. Readers expect it and understand it, but the writer is still obliged to do it as opaquely as possible; making it seem as genuine as possible. If you kick too many dogs, waste too many mothers/hometowns/mentors, and have Private Jenkins show his sweetheart's photo around just before he kaks it one too many times the eye-rolling just kills the story. Even though the reader *knows* this is going on the backround, implicitly, since its fiction, they're willing to suspend their disbelief and join you in the fantasy as long as you do your part to make that possible.

This is effectively what GMs who ascribe to the "you only roll dice to make noise" theory believe in.

However, that's fucking retarded, because games are not novels. If you want to tell a story, go write a fucking novel.

>>50637063
>the only difference between "unacceptable" amounts of fudging and "acceptable" levels is how much satisfies a particular DM's autism. In either case of "the dice fall as they fall" and "the dice fall as the DM wills it" if players are immersed it really doesn't matter.
>A DM is only human, you need to realize what an acceptable level of prep to improvisation is for you, because if your players are properly immersed, it really won't matter to them if you never rolled a single die.

To follow >>50640951, note the above anon (and his picture) are correct. You can run games that are pure open-world, if players are largely self-directing, or games that are one long railroad, if they like that, but I think a GOOD tabletop game almost always falls into a middle ground between Half-Life and Elder Scrolls for a few reasons.

The first one is the same for both video game devs and DMs - there's only so much time and resources available to prepare. So true "open world" games are very hard to do, esp. for a lone DM. If you read the 3.5 DMG it even spells this out when it mentions how dungeons are "flowcharts for adventure;" a dungeon controls your movement much like a Deus Ex map offers you more than one option to approach a problem, but less than an infinite number. A limited set of reasonably diverse options limits the possibility space to something the DM can prepare for, but does not shoehorn the players into one carefully controlled "vision."

The second one is that games really, really do offer you a chance to "make your own story" and have experiences you just couldn't have any other way - not even in a "choose your own adventure" kind of story (or a quest thread, for that matter.) Stuff that crops up from procedural generation is a good example - I'll never forget the treetop dogfight I had with the Red Baron when he decided to attack my aerodrome. Wrong fuckin aerodrome, pal. Ah, Sierra. Those were good days.

>>50640987

Being able to capitalize on opportunities like that in a tabletop game, however - when players break through the wall, take a fifth option, tear up the tracks or do something utterly unexpected but brilliant - absolutely, absolutely requires some ability to improvise. Improvisation will always be part of DMing; how much is dependent on how good the DM is at it, how he prefers to roll and what his players like, of course. Pure improvisation paints you into corners fast while pure planning results in overly artificial and sterile games with no real ability to capture the magic unique to tabletop gaming - it's just Deus Ex with dice, at best.

Teal Dear, it takes a balance.

File: TracksInTheSand1.3.png (575KB, 1134x471px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 1134x471px

>>50637063
>>50637182
>What the fuck is going on in that image.
It's actually a bit like a more slanted variation of the one from the the updated pdf. >>50640923
pic related

The difference between "Open Play" and "Insane DM" is how much prep you put into every possible ending.
Like for the villain, I create an environment with a dozen or so villains and treat it as a shark tank.
As the PCs move through the world, affecting the various power bases of the villains, the other villains get stronger until there is one mighty villain left.
I don't stat or plot out the ending until the final conflict is decided by the players' actions.

>>50641267
How many people plan a campaign with the assumption that it has an end?

I assume it's the most common thing, but I've just got a sort of sandboxy West Marches thing going on that doesn't really need an ending.

>>50641336
>How many people plan a campaign with the assumption that it has an end?
Mine usually fall apart for entirely ooc reasons before a satisfying ending, but yeah.
The idea is more of a primary goal or conflict and the resolution of that.
A good game can just keep building goals and conflicts upon itself and continue on.

>>50641267
The original image is still stupid though.

The "good DM" in the picture is clearly not acting as a simulationist as they control everything to make things happen as they want them to. Yet the "insane DM" is painted as having to be simulationist and do an "insane" ammount of prep-work to keep the campaign going because of all the endings and such. It's a false equivalence. The "insane DM" can do his own fair share of improvisation, including plot hooks and endings, to keep the players happy on their own chosen story path just the same as the "good DM" improvises to keep them on the rails.

Sandboxes work if you give your players an awesome world to explore. Hex crawls are the best form of sandbox because it mechanizes the world. You know about the world through its encounter tables, dungeons, traps, and treasure. Plot will emerge through play, hooks will emerge through encounters or just the actions of the party. Problem driven stories are the most personal and gameable kind.

>>50641440
Does the "Insane GM" necessarily need to be simulationist?
I'm not sure.

But either way, you're right and the label is the only thing that indicates the endings need to planned out, as that would be insane prepwork.

File: 1481025300274.jpg (148KB, 987x700px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 987x700px

>Half the thread talking about how it's okay to railroad if you hide it from the players
What the fuck That's the worst damn form of railroading. It's fine if you tell your players you want to do a story centric game that you already have put work into and they want to play it, but don't think you are doing your players anything but a disservice by trying to sneak it into a game without telling them. Trust me, if your players are anything more than idiots who treat pen and paper games like modern video games they will notice your "invisible railroading".

>>50641515
Seriously, read the pdf.

>if your players are anything more than idiots who treat pen and paper games like modern video games they will notice your "invisible railroading".
It's never railroading if the players don't notice.
Corollary: If the players notice, then it's sometimes railroading.
It's definitely not invisible.

>>50641491
>Does the "Insane GM" necessarily need to be simulationist?
Well I guess not, but it seems to me that what makes it insane is trying to keep track of all those things and try to make them all act as they would in a simulation or a real setting. I mean you wouldn't have to go that far, but it would make sense from that sort of viewpoint on game design.

If you are doing that from a non-simulationist attitude you probably wouldn't bother planning out every possible branching end point, and instead focus on what the players were doing at the time, ignoring or dropping other plot hooks and lines to focus on what the party decided to do and instead focusing less on keeping track of the realistic repercussions of that.

At least I hope I'm explaining it properly but that's the way I see it, I might not be using the terms correctly so I might be wrong about what exactly constitutes a simulationist sorry if that is the case.

>>50641545
>it's never railroading if the players don't notice.
Say that all you want, it doesn't make it true.

>>50641584
Explain how it is railroading if they never notice.

>>50641561
No, you're pretty spot on.

>what makes it insane is trying to keep track of all those things and try to make them all act as they would in a simulation or a real setting.
It's also insane trying to predict and plot out all possible ending scenarios.

>>50641515

If you are doing ANYTHING BUT a full complete open world kind of game, you are railroading to some degree.

The key is to not do it too much or too egregiously. Players can forgive railroading if it doesn't become onerous, obvious or annoying. If the tracks are being laid in the general direction of Fun, and they are free to jump them when they really feel they must, it's cool.

>>50641602
Because there are still rails you dummy. That's like saying a crime didn't happen if there are no witnesses.

>>50641665

do you rage at the rails in books, too? "MUH AGENCY, THE PAGES JUST DO WHATEVER THEY WANT"

>>50641632
>The key is to not do it too much or too egregiously. Players can forgive railroading if it doesn't become onerous, obvious or annoying. If the tracks are being laid in the general direction of Fun, and they are free to jump them when they really feel they must, it's cool.
Good philosophy except for one point, see below.

>>50641665
Railroading is the act of forcing players to stay on the rails, NOT the creation of any plot whatsover.

>>50641705
>Railroading is the act of forcing players to stay on the rails, NOT the creation of any plot whatsover.

Very good point, that. If the players consistently yawn and faff off, it's a big clue that they don't like the plot, or at least their role in the plot. Adjust accordingly.

>>50641515
/tg and vidya are all lies. It's not real. You've never stormed a castle or cast magic spells, but you play pretend because it's enjoyable (I'm not going to pull up buzzwords and say you're immersed or anything because really all you're looking for is to have fun). Part of playing pretend is realizing that you are lying and being lied to. When you say you attack the orc and roll a die you are not really attacking an orc, you are pretending you are.

In vidya this is predetermined and powered by a very compllicated "dm" (the computer) but not a very smart one. The computer can only process, allow, and react to you in the confines of what it is defined to do. If you "go off the rails" in a videogame like say, duping 99 infinite rare candies or making a stacking potion of increase alchemy the game can only respond with the powers it has been given.

DMs do this to, this pretty much every thread with "my player is exploiting X, how do I fix it" not realizing rule 0 is very much a thing and you can just modify stuff as you please.

I think I'm losing my point. I think what I'm trying to say is railroading is just: the level of DM controlling the world that I am comfortable with. Some people like the DM to do nothing but roll on charts and roleplay monsters/NPCs. Some people are completely ok with the DM saying (to himself) the players are going to encounter a band of goblin warriors as their first encounter in this dungeon. In the end it really doesn't matter, it's all a lie anyway, feeling bad that the DM did or did not predetermine the setup from the start is largely arbitrary. It's only when the DM predetermines the outcome that things start getting dicey.

>>50641704
Dude, shush.
Books are not rpgs.

>>50641704
Books are not interactive you ninny, nor are they supposed to be. A role playing GAME is not a book, and it is not to be treated as a book.

>>50641728
>>50641722

both of you miserable cunts please read

>>50640951
>>50640987
>>50641006

where I covered ALL of that already but no, fuck reading, lets just keep posting dumb shit

>>50641755
Um, was there some obtuse lesson there or are you actually mad because someone else posted "Books aren't rpgs."?

If so, why aren't you calling the guy who thinks they're the same a cunt?

Honestly dude, I don't think you should be tossing about the "miserable cunt" stone or the "posting dumb shit" stone in that glass house of yours.

>>50640490
>players will ALWAYS fuck up a rigidly planned story
If you have courage you can use that against them. In the last completed game I ran, there was a giant forest of death, and one of the PCs specifically had in character knowledge of how death-y the death was. It was also in a position to where they didn't NEED to actually go through it to traverse the rest of the region if they were willing to backtrack through much easier caves and plains.

As soon as The party got their first warning about how bad the forest was and how it would be suicide to try traversing it, I started devoting a rather large amount of effort to what they'd find there - because I knew that they would deem it necessary for some reason or another.

Granted I didn't expect them to make a beeline for it, but it still worked out.

File: dungeonmaster.jpg (40KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x360px

>>50629015
True sandboxes kinda suck, anyway. They always degenerate into sporadic acts of violence due to boredom or trite "by manipulating the Medieval stock market, I will become the secret ruler of these lands!" plots from players who think they're being oh-so-clever. Either they go nowhere, or they end up focusing on one or two goal-driven characters.

When it comes to coming up with a good story, a benevolent despotism through DMing trumps an uncertain player-driven democracy any day of the week.

>>50634319
ah the good old 'quantum ogre' approach to branching design.

>>50640655

In summary: you know how the OSR types on blogs five years ago used to go on and on about shit like Matt Finch's pamphlet (rulings, not rules), the "organic" way that D&D was "grown" from "rules-as-needed" rather than designed to fit a vision, and the hard-on for swords & sorcery and weird fantasy à la Raggi?

Forget all that, it's bullshit.

The keys to a good game of D&D are:

• The game is the world—"world" here meaning whatever immediate region the campaign takes place in. (A 100 mi × 100 mi area mapped out at 3 mi to the hex is just about ideal for a campaign that you only expect to last one year real time.) The game is *not* the encounter—encounters are just the bumps in the road while the players explore the world.
• To that end, incentivize exploring. The only timely way to earn XP is to find treasure, and the treasures are out there, in dungeons, in ruins, in lairs.
• Make the exploration interesting. This doesn't just mean to populate your towns and dungeons with personalities and factions. Every important location (the region itself, each town, any dungeon; in a mega-dungeon, most floors) should have a *mystery* associated with it that can only be pieced together by players who care enough to be diligent. Drop clues, but don't sweat it if the players miss them or just don't care; what happens happens.
• What happens happens—and the world is the world. You do not move things around, fudge die rolls to make sure players find that one secret door, or tweak the strength of encounters on the fly. The world only responds to the players when it reacts to what they DO. If you are the referee, you are an impartial arbitrator and must never favor the PCs over the NPCs/monsters or vice versa. This used to go without saying.
• Don't pull punches. Don't fudge dice. Player characters die. This is okay; they're not chosen heroes. And if you're using an OD&D or AD&D XP table, level 1 characters catch up fast.

(cont'd)

>>50643241

• The world must still live and breathe. Things happen regardless of what the players do. Before the campaign begins, you can't just populate the world——you also have to sketch out a "prime timeline" of events that would occur if the PCs were not around to shake things up. • Make sure your "future calendar" has some forks whose outcomes are unknown even to you: leave it up to a die-roll that might be modified according to circumstances.
• Be sure to include a few mundane details in the timeline, the odd weather event or economic fluctuation or rare planetary alignment leading to a religious observance; players will notice how "alive" it makes the setting feel.
• And of course, be willing to alter this "timeline" in response to the players actions—all the while, resisting the ever-present temptation to meta-react (i.e. change things for any reason other than "the PCs altered this circumstance, therefore the outcome is now different").

File: 1480944739211.jpg (262KB, 1138x1200px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1138x1200px

I actually ran Stars Without Number as a sandbox in a really successful way, the players loved it. I think that game lends itself to sandbox play though

My group can only get together once every month, if that. Because of how long it takes to run another session we don't even need to be railroaded. We still charge through the campaign the best that we can. I wish we could get together more. I love playing, but life gets in the way so fucking hard. Doesn't help that two of us are spread across the state. I'm an hour and a half from home, and another is three hours away. He's transferring to the college back there for next semester, and I intend to next fall. Maybe we'll have more time then.

File: 1464927285645.jpg (3MB, 2281x1576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2281x1576px

>>50629015

Players are scum and need to be bullied.

>>50629289
>>50639294
This is the oldest non-solution in the history of this board.

You need active players to sandbox well. Or a system that handles it.

If you are playing something without a contact list, you will need very active players to make it work.

>All this d&d centric advice
Meanwhile over in shadowrun, a sandbox where you take jobs as you can is the norm, and an overarcing plot is a luxury.

>>50640923
thanks Iv been reading up on the stuff, im getting ready to start GMing in the in future. I want to run an outlaw star/cowboy bebop campaign soon and I have a few ideas.

>>50629015

Asking for your players what they want is like asking your girlfriend what kind of man should you be.

File: SOCRATES.png (81KB, 1200x1592px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1200x1592px

>>50637950
I don't think it was a dumb post. On the face of it, it was a perfectly reasonable statement. Systems such as the one he is referring to are indeed very old. I simply pointed out that he was being imprecise with his complaint, and that "outdated" does not make sense in the context.

However, as I also noted, I am very ignorant when it comes to the subject of hexcrawl adventures, which is why I asked Anonymous to clarify his statement so that I could learn from his wisdom.

Just give them the illusion of choice. Let them go where they want and do what they want while tieing it back to the overarching plot, but not every side instance needs to do that.

File: 1471636933464.jpg (60KB, 465x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 465x720px

>>50629015

>make a sandbox
>as in, only a box with sand in it
>get confused when players complain about there only being sand

Cripes you're an unimaginative guy aren't you? A sandbox works because it has a narrative going on that the players can participate in. It's not about having a preplanned journey that everyone should participate in, but rather, there's something going on and you let the players choose how they decide to participate in this.

When you write a sandbox you don't write
>like, there's a rumor that there's a wandering hole in the desert that eats caravans
>and like, Timmy says he saw something weird at the bog

You write about
>The Order of Seven Roses that has wisely ruled the lands of Francia, but are now torn by division as the Third Roselord secretly starts to consolidate his power
>And how the ancient lich Marmaduk has finished his astral research. Now his underground palace wanders the Gui desert and attacks caravans in an intel gathering effort as Marmaduk prepares for his grand re-entrance to the stage of world politics

And the players encounters the ramifications of these major political entities moving and shaking up the status quo. It usually starts indirectly and small scale, but as the players find success and gain a reputation they get more and more involved, possibly even picking sides in the ongoing conflicts of your setting.

>>50646254

This anon gets it.

I recant my earlier pessimism; maybe they're hope for the babbys of /tg/ after all.

Have you tried not playing high fantasy?

>>50647179
What is it about high fantasy settings specifically that has anything to do with railroading in the first place?

Assume said high fantasy setting is agnostic about fundamental questions of fate/destiny.

>>50640951
I don't understand - you say all this stuff about how novels work, which seems to make sense and work with what I know about writing, but then you just end on 'games are not novels' like what the actual differences entail are supposed to be obvious. You have said nothing about what should be done instead.

>>50647257
I'd assume because its a lot easier to make an end goal apparent in a lower fantasy setting. If you swords and sorcerers its pretty obvious that any form of beast cult wizard is evil and that you'll probably have to stop him or face consequences.

Shit like this is why I quit GMing. It never gets better, even if you give them hooks they just say "Oh, I only did that because it was clear that's what you WANTED us to do" and twist it into railroading.
Don't bother playing with them. If they're the only players you can find, quit. Seriously, I learned a long time ago this hobby isn't worth the headaches.

>>50632008
Yeah, it's completely correct that it's total horseshit,