/TG/. Is Sandbox RPG the best kind of RPG to play? Having endless

No.

>>53648943
Why not?

>>53648833
yes

>>53648990
Why would they be "the last true remnants of RPG"?
No one ever said that. Besides you, that is.

>>53648990
Why would it?

>>53648833
It's a loaded question. It all depends on what it aims to do and how well it goes about it.

You seem to be speaking about a computer game, with stuff befitting /v/ or /vg/ rather than /tg/, but even there "sandbox" status on its own never makes or destroys the game. It's how different features, story etc mix together.

In "traditional" games it gets even more complicated because it depends on mentality and behavior of the players, skill of the GM, flexibility of the plot, conventions, themes that one wants to include.

File: Dissapointment sets in.gif (1MB, 478x360px)

1MB, 478x360px

>>53648990
Whenever a DM tells me he's running a "sandbox" campaign, 9/10 times that means "Hey, I have absolutely NOTHING planned and am just going to bullshit and make up everything on the spot. Don't expect me to actually know what I'm doing, get invested in anything, or have any kind of long-term plans for an actual story or plot."

>>53648833
Maybe.

>>53648833
Perhaps

>>53648833
You're posting on the wrong board. Video game RPGs are not "traditional games". Go back to /v/, please.

File: He's_right_you_know.jpg (72KB, 800x598px)

72KB, 800x598px

>>53649114

The closest thing I've ever run to a sandbox is where I just give players three or four paths to get to the same thing. No matter what I'm railroading you. Somehow someway you'll get where I want you to be.

Sandbox is an illusion.

The best kind of roleplaying games happens somewhere in-between sandoxing and railroading.

All the players and characters should be completely free to do whatever the hell they want, but in a meta sense there should be an unspoken agreement to stick to the scenario insofar it makes sense, or otherwise switch characters if necessary.

Sandboxing tends to lead to rootlessness for the players, not knowing what they want to do or where to go, let alone making them all do it together and have it all make sense for all the characters at the same time, and to frustration for the GM because he has no idea how to get the players to do anything, or how to engage them, and he has to somehow plan for anything and everything, or simply improvise everything all the time.

And railroading is just unadulterated shit.

Find a theme, find a scenario, do that together, and play it in a sandboxy manner, and try to not veer off-course.

>>53649748
In this case it's not railroading. It's just fate. Deal with it, player scum. :^)

>>53649748
As long as you don't actually call it a sandbox

File: CZLtx1DUsAA_i1g.jpg large.jpg (41KB, 576x521px)

41KB, 576x521px

>>53649114
This and whenever players say they want a sandbox campaign they either have no idea what to do with themselves, end up murderhobo'ing everything or end up doing some complete uninteresting bullshit like "let's open a tavern"

>Tfw I had a properly prepared Sandbox campaign on making of which I spent almost a year, with lots of interesting quests, well crafted plots, various stuff to do and an epic branching main story and players just decided to piss on everything even slightly more interesting and intellectually demanding than slaying stuff, looting and stealing.
>"So it's Skyrim-like sandbox, right? Fuck questlines then The Greybeards are still waiting for me XDD"
Sandboxes are a fucking meme, I tried to give you fags a chance, but back on the rails it is

>>53648833
>Is Sandbox RPG the best kind of RPG to play?
Very rarely. A sandbox requires a party capable of forming goals and trying to achieve them, as opposed to the more usual setup where the party is reactive to other events going on in the game world. Given the almost necessary information imbalance between the players and the GM, this is often hard to do.

Furthermore, even when it is achieved, it's very rarely the party that decides they want to do things. Usually, it's the story of Main Character McDrive who wants something, and his 3-5 sidekicks who are there to provide mechanical benefits.

>>53650909
>>53649114
You idiots are doing it wrong. Grab some sandbox module for start, for example Carcosa for LoftP.

>>53650909
>uninteresting bullshit like "let's open a tavern"

That's where you're wrong.
Taverns can be super interesting to run. If they want that? Give them challenges. Have their tavern and hometown threatened by the BBEG.

>>53650909

are you telling me you aren't down to run It's Always Sunny in Neverwinter?

>>53652435
No

>>53651058
Carcosa is fucking terrible though.

>>53651058
Carcosa's terrible though. It's a textbook example of how to do a sandbox incorrectly. Tons of hex entries could have just been rolled up on a wandering monster table with no sense of a fully fleshed setpiece. What's more, tons of the encounters feel ultra-isolated and don't really cohere into anything.

>>53650909
>Not buying a plot of land and starting a farm.

>>53656691
>Being a farmer and not a merchant

After reading this thread I'm glad my rpg group is awesome. Our DM does almost no planning after setting up the game, the characters, and the theme. Then us, as players, find meaning in the sandbox.

File: TracksInTheSandbox.png (67KB, 553x727px)

67KB, 553x727px

>>53649755
>The best kind of roleplaying games happens somewhere in-between sandoxing and railroading.
This

Is mount and blade even a good rpg

>>53648833
True sandboxes are terrible, hands down. The only two kinds of "sandbox" campaigns that can even be remotely good are hexcrawls and hidden railroads.

>>53649114
Maybe yours but surely not all

>>53661797
Nope. All. No exceptions.

>>53661797
A few exception

>>53664674
No exceptions.

File: Rhodock.png (675KB, 724x687px)

675KB, 724x687px

>>53648833
Is Rhodock the best faction

>>53648833

Arguably, a sandbox is the only kind of role-playing game legitimately worthy of the name.

Anything else is step down the slippery slope to railroads, storygames, and other swineshit.

>>53667438
This. No exception

>>53648990
When you have limitless possibilities of what you could do, your mind tends to lock up because it doesn't know where to start.

It's why if you ask "what's your favorite color?" it'll take more people longer to answer than if you'd asked "what's your favorite color between red, blue, green, and yellow?" we just need choices to choose from so we know the limitations of our decisions.

File: 1377573197258.jpg (23KB, 217x208px)

23KB, 217x208px

>>53667438
>>53667696

>>53668976
Not an argument

>>53669482
Neither is your shitty opinion faggot.

>>53669482
And neither was your post. You're just asserting an opinion otherwise in a vacuum and declaring everything else explicitly wrong.

And even if you DID have an argument, why would you assume all responses must be arguments? That guy's not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything--he's insulting you. An insult doesn't NEED to be an argument. It's just derision.

The last time I ran a sandbox game the players were genuinely confused.

There was plenty going on and things to do, but they would argue in circles forever about what they should do. It was the amount of choice that drowned them. Every idea got shouted down by everyone else for a dozen reasons. Too dangerous, not dangerous enough, boring, unlikely to succeed, didn't like that NPC, not worth our time, did something like that last time, and so on forever. 'Rails' formed as the party started getting involved in certain plots, but then they would argue in circles forever about which rail they should follow and they kept switching focus at random. Like literally arguing the entire session, if left to themselves, then changing focus, then getting mad at each other for changing focus.

Eventually I gave up because people were getting upset. The only way to manage them was to tell them point blank what their goals were.

>>53669891

This is because most present-day gamers in fact have never played a role-playing game and wouldn't know how to play one if it were spoon-fed to them.

File: Advantage - Common Sense.jpg (43KB, 336x213px)

43KB, 336x213px

>>53667438
There needs to be a scenario present if characters are to fill a role. If it's just a sandbox with no conflict or stakes, it's a fucking make-believe about being someone else.

>>53669504
Not an argument

File: 1454607119569.jpg (5KB, 234x230px)

5KB, 234x230px

>>53677626
Brilliant observation moron.

>>53674500
A sandbox doesn't need to lack conflict or stakes. Ideally, you set it up with several conflicts already brewing, and the PCs decide if, and how, they want to interact with each.

>>53648833
I prewrite a bunch of events and characters that can happen at various locations before hand, but I never railroad my PCs into doing something. I just hand them little clues that there might be interesting things to do in certain places (there's some smoke rising off in the distance or some shit like that), and they can choose to pursue or ignore them as they see fit.

>>53679125
Okay, well how exactly is the average party supposed to figure out which scenario is most important to deal with at that particular moment?

That's the thing that fucks up sandbox games, the player is given multiple options that all might be important, so they get overloaded and end up doing nothing, expect maybe debate which scenario to go with first.

Last time I ran a sandbox, the players killed a guy because an npc they liked had a grudge, sided with the monsters in one area and then hired out an orc warband with their dungeon loot to take over a village.
By the end of it they had a small army of 100 peasants, lots of dissent, were trying to create a cult around one of the dead characters, were running smuggling operations in another area through agents.

The whole thing fell apart after a year of weekly play because the party split into 20 directions as far as what to do. With 12 players, they ended up in factions and doing sneaky shit against each other. It felt like I was a general manager for a bunch of sociopathic teens by the end of it.

>>53679212
>Okay, well how exactly is the average party supposed to figure out which scenario is most important to deal with at that particular moment?

By interacting with the relevant NPCs and deciding for themselves? Why is this a difficult concept?

>>53679603
Okay, well there's an Orc raid to the south that might threaten our home towns, rumors of a lich building an army to the north, and the eastern and western kingdoms are having a war that may or may not be caused by a 3rd party who is hoping to destabilize them both in a bid for power.

So based on this, what the fuck are we supposed to focus on first? They all seem equally important for different reasons and time spent doing one is time NOT spent dealing with the other shit.

Lord help you if the party splits over which one to go to first, then you have to account for like three different plotlines at once while juggling everyone around so they don't end up bored waiting to see what happens on their end.

Then you end up calling it early because you burned yourself out and/or the party is too indecisive to choose a single plotline and shit, so you go back to hiding the railroads so people actually get shit done.

>>53660076
My favourite way of presenting a campaign is the "Flashpoint" method. There's an antagonist with a motive, and objective, and some lieutenants doing his bidding. There's a definite 'end state' the villain is aiming for, and five or more places (the Flashpoints) where he is furthering his progress towards that end-state. He might be acquiring a powerful artifact, killing a potential rival, sowing panic or discord, gaining new allies, and so forth.

The first mission the PCs engage upon, by their intent or by pure chance, interferes with these plans and lets the PCs learn of this grand scheme. After that it is entirely up to them where to go, what to do, and when to do it. Places they prioritize first will be less prepared for their meddling, places they go to near the end will have learned of the PC's abilities and weaknesses and will plan accordingly. Resting becomes a valuable resource as time is of the essence. If they engage upon a side-quest it had better give them a significant advantage in the fight ahead. All of this culminates in a final confrontation, the first one with the true mastermind, at which point the PCs either succeed or fail in one glorious battle where all their efforts bear fruit.

Any consequences of the adventure carry on to the next, whether it's centred around the same PCs or other PCs in the same region dealing with the aftermath.

>>53679781
That's not how you set up your hooks, anon. You try a hook, first. Hint at these conflicts, see where they go, then go from there. Most settings have background conflicts that are in the periphery. As GM you can do whatever you want, even have all three things come together somehow.

>>53648833
bannerlord when

my favorite kind of rpg is a Fiasco game because it is literally limitless and 100% designed to ensure that every session is an actually great story. the sandbox nature works really well there because (a) every character has clearly defined wants and needs, (b) every character has something that binds them to the others, so they stay connected, and (c) the story is finite so there's no "well, we did that, what next?"

all lessons any sandbox campaign can learn from

>>53681137
>bannerlord when
never

>>53681193
True

>>53682133
Fuck off. Bannerlord shall be release

>>53686795
wasn't supposed to come out this year? Where the fuck is the announcements

>>53666745
>can't spell rhodok
>doesn't recognize brytenwalda, which doesn't have rhodoks

>>53652388
Forget the BBEG. Turn it into a capitalism simulator. Force them to make ends meet while dealing with lazy/drunken employees, nobles who trash their rooms and expect to fuck the serving girls, soldiers who demand free board because they're ostensibly keeping you safe etc.

Let the big challenge be the district of the city the inn is located in is now quarantined due to plague. They now have to ride out the quarantine by securing enough food/water if they didn't already have it stockpiled, while trying to remain uninfected and keeping the guests calm.

There's a lot of things you can do with that premise.

File: Screenshot_20170501-054919.png (1MB, 1080x1920px)

1MB, 1080x1920px

>>53648833
I spend a lot of time thinking about and designing sand boxes. They are not a superior type of game, just a style of play with pros and cons. They're also incredibly difficult to do properly and easy to fuck up.

When people think of a sandbox they think of a vast open world to explore with various endless quests within. One definition that tends to be ignored is the sandbox approach to individual goals.

For example the players task is to infiltrate a well fortified and guarded noble house and steal an artifact.

To do this they could -
>Charge in head first
>Infiltrate it at night
>Pose as nobles for an upcoming banquet and steal it then
>Rabble rouse the peasantry to create a distraction
>Kidnap the nobles daughter and blackmail the artifact out of them
>The options are almost endless.

Video games due to the limitations of their game engines are generally unable to do this but in a tabletop RPGs everything is possible.

In this sense any game can be a sandbox, even a heavily plotted one , and this is actually far more rewarding for the players and their agency. In fact an 'elder scrolls esque' sandbox with nothing to do but explore random dungeons and settlements and kill monsters is less of a sandbox than a railroaded game that allows an open ended approach to goals within the railroad.

This is why creating a true sandbox takes a lot of work, because you have to craft an entire open area , detail everything that's in there, including NPC's with their own goals, then link it all together with a plot structure of some kind and within that create a series of open ended goals with additional room for the players to just openly explore or decide screw this we want to be farmers. You also need various encounter tables for the areas on your map and for most of this to be ready before session 1.

I run my game more or less as a sandbox. My players are pretty good at looking for things to do in the long term, like the one who latched onto what he thought was a plot hook when it was just an off the cuff explanation of why three guys have to sleep in one room. That plot hook ended up with him stabbing another PC and getting married to an emperor's daughter.

>>53679781
There's a few approaches to this.

I can understand the frustration from a player perspective. There's no good answer as if they go and say defeat the Orcs. Then the Lich will grow stronger as will the war. But if they don't the villages will be raised etc.

One approach is to effectively freeze the other events , they're still going on just at a stalemate. This allows the players to resolve each in turn but it does stop the world feeling alive and in motion.

You can allow the other threats to progress and escalate but still to a level the players can deal with. So the players return from killing all the orcs , the lich has raised a dragon the players can slay and an army has arrived at the capital.

Note that this is actually how a lot of railroaded games work but without giving the players options as to what they tackle. So module 1 is hunt the orcs , module 2 is defeat the army and module 3 is slay the lich.

You can have NPC groups , by the players choice , deal with the other threats. So the players deal with the orcs, they send the paladins order against the lich and hope the mages guild can resolve the conflict with the army. While this removes the players getting to be the heroes who resolve everything it does resolve the issue of them having to deal with everything Of course there can be additional complications and failures when they return to hear about how these groups did that the players can then step into resolve.

Further never split the party like that. It's metagamey but they do for this to work need to decide on one thing together.

>>53680660
>>53688836
So basically run an actual campaign as opposed to a "you can LITERALLY climb that mountain" open-world adventure, gotcha.

>>53689647
I don't think you understand what a sandbox actually is.

>OP is clearly an idiot asking for validation that open-world VRPGs are closer to tabletops and thus somehow arbitrarily better than linear VRPGs, presumably because someone on /v/ trolled him
>/tg/ is too autistic to recognise this even though OP posted with a picture of Mount&Blade, which is clearly a videogame, and gets angry at him for saying open-world TTRPGs are the only good ones rather than for talking about vidya on /tg/
lmao good thread guys

>>53689715
I understand what it's supposed to be on paper, I also understand what generally happens in practice when you tell people to choose from an infinite number of possibilities.

They either do nothing or they want to do fucking everything.

>>53689806
>infinite number of possibilities
>Your own example had 3...

File: BuildaSandbox-hero.jpg (271KB, 700x398px)

271KB, 700x398px

What if the playing table is a literal sandbox ?
What if the setting is a literal sandbox ?

>>53690207
Those were only the options that I cared the most about. In a sandbox game, you can literally do anything, even say "fuck this shit, I'm going to open up a tavern" or some shit.

>>53687959
All over YouTube.

>>53690256
Sandboxes are fun until some miscreant inevitably comes up with the idea to shit into it.

>>53691577
Yeah I bet the sandbox people would rue the day of Turdgeddon

>>53650909
>an epic branching main story
So it wasn't a sandbox after all.

>>53649114
t. animeposter

>>53649700
t. absolutely the same guy

>>53692053
what good experiences you have had with sandboxes, anon? storytime please?

>>53691208
Yes, but a sandbox doesn't need to be static or lacking in conflict. As GM, you just roll with the punches and retaliate by having one of your more developed plot threads interact with thge tavern and lay more hooks for the players.

In a regular game, they never get to open the tavern, that's the difference. You not wanting to recognize it doesn't change the fact.

>>53692256
Not him, but I have one.

>Meeting new group at university
>Don't really know any of them, so throw together a couple of lazy "Go here, get X" missions while I both develop the game world and get a feel for the pulse of the group's dynamic.
>Start slowly alluding to a Big Villain rising off somewhere, but leaving it vague and open to further development
>Along the way, send them on a fetch quest in some dead archmage's tower for some book.
>Tower is filled with lethal traps, self-repairing golems, magical forcefields, hell, just getting in the front door was a major task, since it couldn't be picked, bashed down with physical force, and none of their magic users had anywhere near the kind of skill to dispel the warding spells.
>After much adventures and about 3 sessions, manage to dodge enough of the hazards to get the book and get back out.
>And then, as they're returning it to their employer for the payout, one of them asks
>Who owns McClellier's tower anyway? I mean, it's sitting a couple of miles from that village, right?
>Ehh. quickly spin a yarn about how it would have reverted to the government, and if they want to purchase it, I suppose they could, but nobody is really interested in a deathtrap tower.
>After some discussion, party buys the tower
>And begins what I can only describe as a systematic war against the automated defenses, clearing it out room by room and hallway by hallway, either tricking it into accepting them as the masters of the place, or just breaking things past the point where they can self-repair..
>Go on external adventures to either acquire capital (this stuff is expensive) or to acquire esoteric magical knowledge in order to either bypass defenses or access various features.
>Eventually falls apart due to player idiocy, but we had a long run of good sessions.

Bear in mind, I wasn't planning a sandbox, but it just kind of turned into it.

>>53648833
>Warband
I hate that game because I love it.
I love it because it's overall a great medieval rags-to-riches simulator.
I hate it because it gets really boring really fast. After getting enough wealth to maintain a massive and fully upgraded standing army, enough renown/cha to maintain an army of 100+ men, the game grinds to a halt. You can now destroy all enemy armies except royal armies singlehandedly, and you may even be able to take a lightly guarded castle/town or two. But you cannot win sieges against a large garisson, and you cannot start your own kingdom because you'll get ROFLstomped and even lords you have good relations with will rarely join you. Then you quit not out of rage, but out of boredom. Boredom caused by hours of running around the map, defeating armies and replenishing your very meagre losses.

>>53649114
This is my experience as well

>>53693581
Maybe you're both shit players?

>>53648833
Look, sandbox games are fun enough as single player computer games - well, I don't find them all that fun anymore, but you can still goof around, go through dungeons, however you feel.

But in a TTRPG, with other players, it gets frustrating. Having endless ways to play the game doesn't make up for the fact that a sandbox RPG can feel unfocused, especially if the party themselves doesn't have any direction. And what do you do if the party members each want to be a warrior, merchant, landless noble, and bandit? How do you get that to work all in one party?

I would much rather have a GM sit me and the party down and go 'okay, we're going to be playing a political sort of game.' That way we all make fitting characters, and we don't have to wander around for several sessions before half-heartedly deciding to be mercenaries and pissing off the members of our group that didn't want to be mercenaries.

But the absolute worst part is the biggest way it's not like a sandbox game like TES or Fallout: it seems like GMs who run sandbox campaigns, in my experience, will never ever drop a questhook. You have to scrabble and search and dig for it, every time. I don't know why - maybe they're afraid of railroading - but when you're put in a setting with no idea of your options, let alone what you really want to do, that makes for a bad game very fast. I am tired of vague games that don't go anywhere because GMs aren't willing to introduce drama and motivation when the game desperately needs it.

Can anyone post the Tracks in the Sand pdf?

File: Tracks_in_the_Sand;_Advice_on_Railroads_and_Sandboxes_in_Tabletop_Gaming.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>53695139
Here you go anon

>>53688097
>doesn't recognize it's viking conquest
Shame on you

>>53695782
As someone who has read the thing, I disagree with a lot of what's in there. It literally suggests you copy the way modules are written, as if modules were notoriously good at not railroading.

The person who wrote it can't keep their advice straight, either. You can't use islands AND module-style at the same time unless you're prepping two completely different ways, and they completely fail to realize islands can let you sandbox without any of the problems they claim the format has.

>>53695782
Thank you very much

>>53692705
>As GM, you just roll with the punches and retaliate by having one of your more developed plot threads interact with thge tavern and lay more hooks for the players.
That's not rolling with the punches though, that's forcing the players along a railroad so that the party actually engages with one of your plotlines.
>In a regular game, they never get to open the tavern, that's the difference.
From what I can tell, they don't get to open a tavern in your sandbox either for long before the plot comes in to force them onto the rails again.

>>53697365
How does having one of your developed ideas interact with the tavern forcing them out of it/railroading? That just sounds like a lack of imagination

>>53695885
Is Viking Conquest good

>>53698040
Because the demon lord of Vaz'quath presumably has better shit to do than fuck up some random no-name tavern in podunk middle-of-nowhere and if his army is large enough to cause problems for them by proxy, it is (or at least, it should) already too late for them to do anything about his army.

If anything, once it becomes clear that the group has no interest in being heroes, the demon lord's army should already be dealt with by individuals who do have an interest and are willing to put their necks on the line in order to deal with that army since the world is (or again, should be) much larger than the PC's with various entities having their own vested interest in making sure that the demon army is dealt with.

If that's not the case, then why even call it a sandbox in the first place since you're so adamant about having your campaign be used regardless of player agency? Just run an actual fucking campaign with your idea as the primer or some shit.

>>53649114
That is literally me. What is wrong with it though?

>>53658057
You need money to make money. The farmer makes money.

>>53695885
viking conquest is brytenwalda, only they added a shitty storyline and charged money for it

>>53648833
a minecraft roleplay server perhaps

>>53694248
>And what do you do if the party members each want to be a warrior, merchant, landless noble, and bandit?
Before opening the game into a sandbox, force the players to work as a group. Remove their individuality. The group shall never split. So at first make them become a company or some shit, give themselves a name(a group's name, their individual names shall then be worthless). Make it so nothing will ever be accomplished unless there is full consensus on the group. After that you shouldn't have that problem.

>>53701442
So are sandbox games the best for building teamwork skills?

>>53699922
Yeah, see the problem here is that you're a moron, and prepped a demon lord when the campaign's scope doesn't even begin to justify it, and when your players have decided to work a tavern.

The solution, yes, is to throw your retarded demon lord away. Save those notes for a campaign that can actually work with him. Make your plot be something else.

But this isn't even sandbox-specific stuff. If you want a demon lord bad guy in your campaign, tell yours players that's the campaign you're running. They'll set up a demon hunters' agency, instead.

>>53693177
>can't take castles
>can't start a kingdom because you will get stomped

Just HOW shit are you at this game anon? Apply yourself please.

>>53701162
>What is wrong with it though?
See:
>Don't expect me to actually know what I'm doing, get invested in anything, or have any kind of long-term plans for an actual story or plot.
If the players would like to expect such things, then it is an issue, especially because they are not explicitly saying "Don't expect this".
Otherwise, party on.

>>53703098
What if the big bad evil guy shows up inbetween missions?

for example the heroes accept to help the merchants deal with the sudden over population of wolves. During the many travels the players do to solve the problem they get glimpses of the BBEG doing stuff. Like
>players are moving to the forest
>while they are on the road they are stopped by the BBEG(to them is just a regular NPC) who asks for their help in obtaining an artifact (sidetracking their wolf quest)
>whether the players help him or not he constantly shows up asking for help until he gets enough equipment
Then suddenly whatever place the players are doing sandboxy shit gets attacked, ruined, whatever.

Does that work for a sandbox with plot, sort of? Just a memeidea I got to insert plot into sandboxes.

I mean the players theorically should feel:
- Retarded for helping the villain
- Betrayed because the 'friend' they met on the road was actually evil
- Angry because solving the wolf problem didn't make the world a better place since the town got fucked anyway
- Might want vengeance on him if they were dumb enough to own a tavern or something
And yet, they don't know where the BBEG left, so they have to investigate and do whatever they want in the mean time. Keeping the sandboxy elements and a plot at the same time.

Y/N? Sorry for rambling.

>>53702910
Not that anon, but I have pretty much the same problem. At best I can support the overthrow of another kingdom by the 'true ruler.' Most castles have much larger garrisons than I can achieve in one army, so I need allied support, and even then it's up to chance if we'll get attacked by a relieving army.

>>53702102
More long-term

>>53706028
try mid-term

>>53703986
What's your stats

How2sandbox
1: make a load of factions, most of which are opposed
2: keep throwing faction oriented quest hooks at the party
3: once they bite, the enemy of that faction is BBEG faction
4: you're done, write campaign as normal

>>53648833
>Is Sandbox RPG the best kind of RPG to play?
Assuming you're not talking about video games. Most people prefer non-sandbox games, but it's up to preferences.

>Are they the last true remnants of RPG?
I don't know what you mean. 'Remnants' imply that something has been lost. I don't think anything has been lost. Developers are making a lot of different games, but old games / modules don't disappear and the heart of the hobby has always been improvisation / homebrew (quests and settings).

>>53707661
>>53702910
>Apply yourself please
Can you give a "for dummies" guide on how to apply myself? Basically, what am I doing "wrong" in the late game?

>>53702653
>Has the reading comprehension of a toddler.
>Calling anyone else a moron.
Pick one.

>>53708458
Did you start any business

>>53648833
No becuase you need to have a story to really engage the players. You can have a wide open world where PCs can go anywhere, but you need a story and a few clear goals so they don't just wander aimlessly and get bored.

>>53697365
But they can still chose to ignore the hook, anon.
It's just that you remind them that they are in a world of wizards, dragons, demons and mad gods.
A world where the honest folk are met with perils on a rather frequent basis, hence the need for adventurers.

Now, they can be those brave souls meeting the threat against civilization and protect that tavern themselves.
Or they can search for some hot-blooded young fools eager to make some coins.

>>53708921
Or a lotta sidequests that culimate into something interesting happening later

>>53709756
It's something I notice about sandbox games in general, DM's are all like "oh, you can do anything" but then they'll still treat PC's like they're the most important people in the world when the world is vastly larger than the actions of the party.

For example, what the fuck are the other kingdoms doing as an undead army lays waste to the countryside? What about other adventurers who would presumably exist within the world who might rise to the challenge? What about survivors who decide to become heroes just to get revenge for their dead families?

If people want to run a tavern, let them run the tavern and leave any other extraneous details in the background for other major players within the world to deal with. I mean sure, it might seem shitty to throw away weeks of prep for something completely out of left field but that's what happens when you give players practically unlimited freedom in what they choose to do in your setting.

>>53710061
Not him, but this "only the PCs have actual ability to affect things" is a cancer on RPGs, whether you're going for a sandbox or no.

Then again, I once got really annoyed when a GM I was playing with pulled a trick like that where the goal wasn't to beat the main villain, it was to do so before one of 3 other "strong" adventuring parties did the trick, which we failed to do.

>>53710061
>It's something I notice about sandbox games in general, DM's are all like "oh, you can do anything" but then they'll still treat PC's like they're the most important people in the world when the world is vastly larger than the actions of the party.
I treat the PCS like the straw that broke the camel's back.
I set up the world with numerous factions all vying for power and their own goals, each one is a potential BBEG.
They all exist in an extremely delicate and precarious balance, doomed to destabilize at any moment.
Then I release the players into the world like a bull in a china shop.
Their actions tip the scales and set villains to rise and fall, even if it's just by helping an old beggar woman find her lost pet.
The fun for me is stitching the falling pieces into an adventurous narrative.

>>53710289
>I once got really annoyed when a GM I was playing with pulled a trick like that where the goal wasn't to beat the main villain, it was to do so before one of 3 other "strong" adventuring parties did the trick, which we failed to do.
The trick there is to make the possibility of such a thing obvious, even if only in hindsight.
Surprising the players with failing to meet a hidden timer they had no way of knowing about is always a dick move.
Telegraphing the move or metagaming is preferable to thrusting failure on the PCs unjustly.

Now if you knew those teams were out there trying for the same goal, then suck it up anon and do better next time.

>>53710507
>I treat the PCS like the straw that broke the camel's back.
Okay, I don't see how that's feasible if the party is looking after a tavern in bumblefuck nowhere though.

>>53710061
Who are you even arguing against? I'm pretty sure literally everyone agrees with this in theory and only fails at it in practice.

The only thing I see that's wrong with your post is that you might be trying to advocate for GMPCs and shit like that, which are vastly more cancerous than PCs being treated like the protagonists of their own book.

>>53713406
Nice reading comprehension.

What I'm saying is that in a setting where there's a huge fucking population of people, why exactly is the fate of the world on a few random fucktards when kingdoms, armies, adventurers, etc. would (or at least, should) have their own agency in dealing with the greater issues of the setting once it's clear that nobody else is going to pick up the slack.

Like is nobody outside of the party going to do anything as villages and kingdoms are being burned to the ground by hordes of monsters? Are these morons seriously the only ones who are capable of dealing with whatever the fuck before Armegeddon hits?

And it makes it even dumber if we're talking about level 1 characters too.

>>53648833
Only if it's a sandbox megadungeon.

>>53712540
>Okay, I don't see how that's feasible if the party is looking after a tavern in bumblefuck nowhere though.
That's because you lack vision.
Off the top of my head, some bumblefuck tavern would be a great place for an illicit meeting between criminal overlords banding together to overcome the guard, their religious allies, and the corrupt wizards guild.

>>53713496
Because you're playing a game about a story and dramatic and narrative rules are generally followed in those? What are you trying to argue against here? The concept of protagonist?

The reason those people aren't dealing with the fate of the world are for you to figure out, not me. See, if I want to run a sandbox, I think about these things beforehand. If the players set up a tavern, I'm not prepping something that threatens the fate of the world, I'm prepping something that threatens the fate of their tavern.

You're the idiot who keeps injecting their own assumptions about setting and plot into this, then calls people out on their "reading comprehension" as if you were making sense.

>>53687959
They will have something at E3 for sure. It will come when its ready.

Fuck bannerlord, its going to suck dicks.

Videogames aren't that good anymore, its the gameplay. The gameplay has stalled, there is nothing fun anymore.

This is why we come here and play pretend, at least the gameplay is better.

>>53715217
>The reason those people aren't dealing with the fate of the world are for you to figure out, not me.
Why exactly should I waste my time when I already understand that the reason you didn't figure out those details is because the world only exists as far as our party can see?
>If the players set up a tavern, I'm not prepping something that threatens the fate of the world, I'm prepping something that threatens the fate of their tavern.
So what, the ultimate evil decides to fuck off somewhere while the party tries to figure out how to get a liquor license? Well shit, I guess it's a good thing they did open up a tavern.

>>53714518
Wouldn't there be taverns for them to already meet at on or near their home turf though? Even then, fail to see how the party is responsible for what their patrons talk about while they're enjoying a pint.

File: 1376692384780.jpg (40KB, 800x804px)

40KB, 800x804px

>>53715335
>This is why we come here and play pretend, at least the gameplay is better.
Wew lad, that's a good joke.

>>53716133
No, you retard. There is no ultimate evil in my campaign. There is a corrupt city, being drained by leeches; There's a competing tavern, willing to hire criminals to harass the PCs'; There's a shortage of grain to make beer with, or the king has ruled alcohol is prohibited and the PCs need to run a speakeasy. You have no imagination, you cunt.

>>53648833
Most people who play tabletop RPGs don't want true sandbox games. Sort of the same way that most people who play tabletop RPGs don't want true railroad games.

You find the place on the continuum where your group is comfortable and work there.

>>53716133
Why are you coming up with taht kind of big scopestuff before the game gets there on its own?

>>53717308
>There is no ultimate evil in my campaign.
"Y'see fellas, I knew that ignoring the main quest was a good idea."
>There is a corrupt city, being drained by leeches; There's a competing tavern, willing to hire criminals to harass the PCs'; There's a shortage of grain to make beer with, or the king has ruled alcohol is prohibited and the PCs need to run a speakeasy.
Uh dude, most of those suggestions don't work when the tavern is in podunk nowhere and shit. The only thing that could honestly work is a shortage of grain but even that's inconsequential once you have a mage with access to create food/water.
>You have no imagination, you cunt.
Coming from someone trying to run a sandbox campaign, I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head at the irony of your statement.

>>53717735
The whole point of a sandbox is that there's no Main Quest trying to pull the players into scopecreep. I never said the tavern was in a podunk town, that's some bullshit assumption you threw in at some point.

If it's a tavern in a faraway place there's a billion other ways to mess with it. The caravan that supplies it has gone missing. There's someone trying to buy up the town because they found some natural resource to exploit nearby. The town being corrupt and a competing tavern are possible too, I don't know why you dismissed those.

The king ruling alcohol is illegal affects podunk towns within his kingdom. Expect someone to come close down the tavern soon.

>>53716167
>Wouldn't there be taverns for them to already meet at on or near their home turf though?
Taverns well known and spied on by their enemies, sure.
Are you legitimately dumb or are you just not trying?

>Even then, fail to see how the party is responsible for what their patrons talk about while they're enjoying a pint.
True enough.
Clearly, hijinks ensue.

>>53718020
>Taverns well known and spied on by their enemies, sure.
Why would these factions advertise where they drink though? Are you legitimately dumb or just not trying?
>Clearly, hijinks ensue.
Because clearly the best way to move the plot along is to force conflict rather than having it happen naturally.

>>53717811
>The king ruling alcohol is illegal affects podunk towns within his kingdom. Expect someone to come close down the tavern soon.
The tavernman could use sake or wine instead, right?

>>53649114
>or have any kind of long-term plans for an actual story or plot.


Its an alternate world, not a book or comic book

>>53648833
>/TG/. Is Sandbox RPG the best kind of RPG to play?
YES.

Its the entire point of tabletop rpg.

Or do you think the point of rpg is to be some eco friendly or "I will play at any time or at any situation possible" computer rpg?

>>53674500
>If it's just a sandbox with no conflict or stakes, it's a fucking make-believe about being someone else.
YES?

>>53679212
>the player is given multiple options that all might be important, so they get overloaded and end up doing nothing, expect maybe debate which scenario to go with first.


The player decide nothing, his character decide what he will do based at what he would do if he was (he is) at this specific situation ,

>>53718432
The character decides nothing because everything that the character is, is based off the directions of the player.

I don't know where this bullshit started but autists who treat characters as separate entities are the fucking worse.

>>53718020
Not that anon, but I think it's wrong to force high stakes plot on players who have expressed interest in low level slice of life thing (by opening the tavern).

>>53718483
>is based off the directions of the player.

but those directions are based at what and how the character is.

You make your character do something, because that is what you think he would do at this specific, time, place, situation, with the specific items he has with him at this moment and specific friends/enemies that can hurt/help him

>>53718630
>but those directions are based at what and how the character is.
No, they're still based on the player's decisions.
>You make your character do something, because that is what you think he would do at this specific, time, place, situation, with the specific items he has with him at this moment and specific friends/enemies that can hurt/help him
Again, the player is still calling the shots in this situation.

The character has no autonomy, it cannot make any decisions without the player's input and pretending that that's not the case is asinine as fuck.

>>53718630
Most players don't think "what would my character do" but "what would I do" in a given situation, though.

>>53718669
The point is the player can narrow down the decision space by appealing to the character's motivations. There are players who can play in sandboxes. I've met them. Don't project your incompetence on everyone else

>>53719305
>The point is the player can narrow down the decision space by appealing to the character's motivations.
Which isn't going to fucking help if the player himself is indecisive as fuck. I don't know why you're trying to argue in circles about this man, the character has no autonomy and will always be limited by the capabilities of the player no matter what.
>There are players who can play in sandboxes. I've met them.
Neat, still has nothing to do with what we're talking about though.

>>53718050
>Why would these factions advertise where they drink though?
Either you don't know what spying is or you're trolling. I refuse to accept the possibility that you are this stupid and can type.

>Because clearly the best way to move the plot along is to have it happen naturally via tavern management in a rare tavern where no hijinks ever ensue.
To each their own, I suppose.

>>53719498
>Either you don't know what spying is
If they're that integrated that they know where they drink, why hasn't someone poisoned their supplies or ambushed them during happy hour or some shit?
>To each their own, I suppose.
What a complete non-answer.
>"It's just muh opinion! GAWD!"

>>53719592
I don't even know what kind of scenario you've built up in your head at this point.

If we're going with the initial scenario of the PCs owning a tavern and having criminal bosses gather in it to discuss something, do you really think they'd be able to get away with poisoning them without getting dragged into a plot?

Also, most people would probably, you know, interact with the characters, instead of being a tool and trying to circumvent every single possible vector of interest in the setting. Are you so retarded you'd pass up the chance to meet these criminals and be their bartender?

>>53720171
You're faltering to follow your own narrative and it's fucking hilarious.

First off, I was asking why the spy, who knows where the rival faction goes to wet their whistle, doesn't orchestrate some sort of scenario that leaves everyone in the tavern dead as early as it takes to set everything up? I'm not even talking about the PC's bar.

Secondly, why the fuck would criminals make themselves obvious when the whole reason why they're at the PC's bar in the first place is to be incognito?

Seriously, take a moment and get your story straight before hitting that [submit] button.

>>53720260
I'm not that anon. This >>53720171 is my only post in this chain. I think at this point you barely know what the fuck you're talking about. The other guy was basically saying they came to this tavern BECAUSE it's a tavern they don't frequent, and that's possibly on neutral ground. None of them have had time to sabotage the meeting, that's the point. Honor among thieves works well for a story, anyways.

They can make a truce and show up in force to posture, and not exchange a single blow, figurative or literal. Are you the anon that has no imagination, up to your tricks again?

>>53720345
>I'm not that anon, I swear.
Sure pal, whatever you say.
>They can make a truce and show up in force to posture, and not exchange a single blow, figurative or literal.
Why the PC's bar though? I mean surely there would have to be other taverns that would work better as neutral ground than some random dive that opened up like a week ago.

Also, if these factions control so much area, how the fuck are the PC's even opening up this bar in the first place? I mean, for all they know, the PC's are trying to open up the tavern as a cover to allow their rivals, so the PC's would probably get run out and end up in an area that's outside of that faction's control if they have no interest in dealing with that bullshit.

Also, you claim that I have no imagination yet you can't come up with a single scenario that doesn't force the party to end up in some deep plot when all they want to do is run a respectable business.

File: Captura.png (69KB, 427x754px)

69KB, 427x754px

>>53720518
Here, genius.

I say you have no imagination because you keep coming up with dumb assumptions about these scenarios and prove yourself unable to let them go to search for a different possibility. It's like you're married to some broken idea of what realism is, and can't deviate from what you're 100% sure would happen, which is a really arrogant way to be and no help at all when playing RPGs.

I can come up with plenty slice of life scenarios, but I'm making certain assumptions myself, based on who I'm running MY game for. I know my players, and I know what they expect out of starting a Tavern/business in general

A slice of life scenario has much more to do with developing NPCs in the area, and bringing them in and out of the story as it goes. I've suggested plenty things that wouldn't lead to a deeper plot, anyways, so I'm not sure why I have to justify myself to your moving the goalpost

>>53720766
>Captura
Congrats, you know what photoshop is.
>I can come up with plenty slice of life scenarios, but I'm making certain assumptions myself, based on who I'm running MY game for.
So you're admitting that it's not really a sandbox then? Good to know, at least you're being honest now.

>>53720841
It's the default name for images made with the snip tool in my system's language, which is spanish. I haven't edited the image. Feel free to be a nutty paranoiac. Not my problem.

Nobody said a Sandbox couldn't be geared towards the people playing it, so this is just more goalpost moving. Do I have to write a fucking setting book and give myself amnesia so I can buy it and run a true sandbox?

>>53720898
>It's the default name for images made with the snip tool in my system's language
Sounds like bullshit to me senpai.
>Do I have to write a fucking setting book and give myself amnesia so I can buy it and run a true sandbox?
I'd rather you just dropped the bullshit and admit that you're running a normal game instead of trying to push the sandbox meme.

I mean, is it really so terrible to run an actual game with structure rather than pertending that players actually have a choice in what they do in your campaign?

>>53720958
I didn't think I would find that troll that talks to himself haunting other threads. How are you troll? Lots of posts to go till bump limit, huh?

File: 1474249028578.jpg (13KB, 280x272px)

13KB, 280x272px

>>53721182
You're not even trying anymore.

>>53719592
>If they're that integrated that they know where they drink, why hasn't someone poisoned their supplies or ambushed them during happy hour or some shit?
Because of "an extremely delicate and precarious balance, doomed to destabilize at any moment."
Jackass.

>>To each their own, I suppose.
>What a complete non-answer.
>>"It's just muh opinion! GAWD!"
What is wrong with you?
Seriously?
My answer was to mock the anon here:
>>53719498
>>Because clearly the best way to move the plot along is to have it happen naturally via tavern management in a rare tavern where no hijinks ever ensue.
This framing of their suggestion makes it clear that I consider their opinion of "the best way to move the plot along" utterly ridiculous.
Then I point out that I accept that they are allowed to have their utterly ridiculous opinion, reinforcing that I consider their opinion worthless by passive aggressively stating "To each their own, I suppose."

How was any of that not clear?
Is English not your first language?
Is that the problem?
Or are you just drunk?

File: 1448218252397.jpg (61KB, 380x380px)

61KB, 380x380px

>>53721478
>Literally Badwrongfun: the post

>>53721553
That makes no kind of sense either.
Are you just replying at random?
Are you using a chart?
Do you mind posting it?

>>53692849
>party holds up in magic tower
>tons of rooms locked behind magical doors that can't be picked or destroyed
>must follow archmage's trail in order to find out how to reverse each individual magical lock
>trail leads conveniently through several very dangerous locations
>open door another after another as they continue the story
>more defenses locked behind the doors
>at the end is great magical loot and tons of gold
>final door
>boss fight with archmage himself
>win
>unlock last door
>a high level artifact
sounds awesome as hell

>>53692849
>>53723262
Gay

>>53722051
Explain to me how
>Then I point out that I accept that they are allowed to have their utterly ridiculous opinion, reinforcing that I consider their opinion worthless by passive aggressively stating "To each their own, I suppose."
Isn't the definition of Badwrongfun faggotry?

>>53725252
No it isn't

>>53726019
>"I'm going to condescendingly respond to a differing opinion, which is obviously wrong because it's not to my personal tastes.
Badwrongfun in a nutshell.

Is there such a thing as a sandbox railroad?

>>53725252
>>53726084
I wasn't saying their fun was badwrongfun.
I was saying that thinking that "the best way to move the plot along is to have it happen naturally via tavern management (which is sheltered from plot by being) in a rare tavern where no hijinks ever ensue" is a ridicuolous opinion, worthy of mocking.
There are other, fine ways of defending tavern-running without suggesting that it's the superior form of implementing plot.

It's not badwrongfun, it badwrongdumb.

>>53729569
See
>>53660076
And the pdf the image came from, Tracks in the Sand

File: 1488106554657.jpg (38KB, 600x375px)

38KB, 600x375px

>>53729697
>I wasn't saying their fun was badwrongfun.
>but I'm going to call it badwrongdumb instead.

>>53729791
To be clear, chucklefuck, the fun was not badwrongfun, the poster was badwrongdumb, not unlike you.

>>53729860
Please, keep digging.

>>53649755
I prefer to set my characters up in a world I know inside and out, and give them something concrete to call their own. Maybe it's their ship and their mission in the galaxy, maybe it's the castle and lands around it. Then I figure out where they are, pick a faction who would fuck with them, and make that faction fuck with them. Things tend to work out after that.

File: 9OUlqlT.jpg (118KB, 668x623px)

118KB, 668x623px

>>53656691

>>53668935
Pretty much this. It depends on your group though.

I've run the gambit of linear to sandbox campaigns for my own group of friends, and in pretty much all of the more sandbox-leaning campaigns the group loses interest rather quickly if I don't at least give them a series of concise choices they could make. They actually prefer just coasting along the railroad tracks and they haven't sacrificed character development for it either.

It's a lot easier on me as a DM too. It makes planning the adventures a lot easier and I don't feel like I'm unnecessarily railroading them because they've expressed they enjoy it more this way.

>>53679781
>Okay, well there's an Orc raid to the south that might threaten our home towns, rumors of a lich building an army to the north, and the eastern and western kingdoms are having a war that may or may not be caused by a 3rd party who is hoping to destabilize them both in a bid for power.

Figure out where you are on the map and deal with the closest one. Whichever you don't fight is either handled by other adventurers or becomes an even bigger threat, depending on how many plot hooks the DM has after you handle what you pick.

>So based on this, what the fuck are we supposed to focus on first? They all seem equally important for different reasons and time spent doing one is time NOT spent dealing with the other shit.

Yes, life is like this too. You handle it the same way you do in life. Pick one, and deal with the consequences.

>Lord help you if the party splits over which one to go to first, then you have to account for like three different plotlines at once while juggling everyone around so they don't end up bored waiting to see what happens on their end.

Don't let the party split. Make it clear that the threats cannot be handled by a half-assed team, and splitting means almost certain failure. If they do it anyway, split the sessions between who goes where. Say two guys go north to the lich and the other three go south for orcs. Either you have different game days for them until one group either dies or finishes their quest and regroups, or you keep the same day and go back and forth between them, letting the group you aren't running play XBox.

>Then you end up calling it early because you burned yourself out and/or the party is too indecisive to choose a single plotline and shit, so you go back to hiding the railroads so people actually get shit done.

You do if you're shit at running sandboxes. Otherwise, you work around it.

>>53729569
Depends on how exactly you define the two, but if you go with "Sandbox" being a player emergent plot, and "railroad" in the sense that the DM forces the players to go along with one set of actions to succeed, then theoretically.

You have the thing upthread about a group wanting to own a tavern. Suppose you do that in your session zero, and the game is now about a party of people who are trying to retire from adventuring to open a tavern somewhere.

>Well, you can't open a tavern without a liquor license
>The only way you can get a liquor license in this city with the corrupt as fuck bureaucracy is to do a quest for [guy who hands out alcohol licences]
>That quest has one and only one way to succeed at it.
etc.

>>53716167
>Wouldn't there be taverns for them to already meet at on or near their home turf though?

The people meeting at the tavern are an outsider faction of people trying to destabilize the situation, decently high up in each faction. They meet in the player's tavern because it happens to be on the border intersecting all the factions' territory.

>Even then, fail to see how the party is responsible for what their patrons talk about while they're enjoying a pint.

They aren't, what they are responsible for is overhearing the conversation. Play it as if your spies/sabateurs are normal patrons, then have one of them shout about the King or w/e before being quickly hushed by his companions. Let the players get curious on their own. If it doesn't work, may the spies regulars who ALWAYS mumble quietly to each other when everyone else is loud and happy. Once the player's bite, fudge an awareness/perception/eavesdropping test so that they overhear the conspiracy. Now, what happens depends on them. Maybe before becoming a barmaid, they were a member of one of the factions. Maybe they weren't, but think the conspiracy is morally wrong. Maybe they just don't want their business fucked up by war. Maybe they don't care and ignore it.

Work with what they give you.

>>53650953
>Usually, it's the story of Main Character McDrive who wants something, and his 3-5 sidekicks who are there to provide mechanical benefits.

Good.

>>53730568
Why exactly is that good? Since when is sharing the spotlight among the party a bad thing?

>>53730924
Because I fucking hate wallflowerss with no ability to create and run a character with any sort of personal ambition besides "follow the quest to the end." Those chucklefucks being sidekicks to the players that actually PLAY is about all they're good for.

>>53730924
>>53731343
As an addendum, I do have a problem with players who deliberately try to take the spotlight off of other, active players. However, players that make no effort to get involved in the story and just meekly follow whoever because they have all of the personality of a damp sponge get no sympathy from me.

File: ive-been-digging-all-day-and-i-still-havent-found-a-fuck-to-give-thumb.jpg (15KB, 304x232px)

15KB, 304x232px

>>53729905
>Please, keep digging.
You've really got me curious about this chart of random replies you're using.
I wonder if they've ever synced up in any meaningful way.

>>53648833
yes

>>53729944
always liked this pic