>>97889041
Provide actual examples of play or shut the fuck up.

Is OP the same guy from that other thread who bragged about his improv skills, but it turned out he was doing a play by post game?

>>97889052
Oh, so now we need examples of play, and not with the spammed "in ur settan" nogames threads?

>>97889071
It seems to be.

>>97889197
It’s cause if you’re going to talk mad shit, you better back it the fuck up with actual examples instead of vagueposts about nothing.

>>97889236
>vague
what is vague

>>97889243
> vague
>/vāɡ/
>adjective
>of uncertain indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.
Explain why you are gung ho about sandbox campaigns in specific. Explain what you mean when you say “prepare too much”. Explain why resource tracking is necessary in your ideal game. Explain what it means to “railroad” players, because I’ve seen far too many people abuse that word to describe the most benign shit.

In short, stop being vague, asshole. Explain why I should force my players into a sandbox campaign when they have never expressed interest in it before.

>>97889236
Seems to be a case of inconsistent standards.

>>97889287
Only thing that matters is putting up or shutting up.

>>97889041
>Everyone's issues with RPGs are solved...
When you start playing other systems. And I mean actually reading them and understanding what they are attempting to say and do, instead of just trying to play every game like D&D and then getting upset that the game isn't D&D.

>>97889281
Sandbox is pure RPG, if you don't do them then you're squandering the potential of the medium.

>>97889361
Playing other games is a crutch.

>>97889452
>continues to vaguepost after being called out
You’ve failed. Get the fuck out and play a real game.

>>97889452
So can you post some fun anecdotes of the sandbox games you've run?

>>97889041
>>97889197
>You don't need to prepare too much
Sorry anon but a retard that spouted "don't prep" rhetoric got exposed for being a play-by-post player (not even a GM) on discord so the credibility of anyone saying that you shouldn't prepare is at an all-time low.

>>97889454
Vagueposting is a crutch. Now make like Tiny Tim and go die of a mysterious, unspecified illness.

Your bait is boring and your opinions are bad.

I will continue to play how I want and run games how I want.
You will continue to be nogames and no life.

>>97889041
You're everything that's wrong with RPGs today, and very probably a tranny.

>>97889041
>Everyone's issues with RPGs are solved when you do sandbox play.
But I've never had fun playing a sandbox game.

>>97889307
Okay, so the faggots who spam "in ur settan" nogames threads should put up or shut up.

>>97889041
>You don't need to prepare too much
blatantly untrue sandboxes require exponentially greater amounts of prep then linear games. simple logic; a square covers more space then a line.

>>97889825
So no examples of play, OP?

>>97889485
Preparing is good, but you aught not do too much.

>>97889834
I don't think you understand a sandbox. It might be the case for most of you, since you're crying about being vague and begging for material to help you.

>>97889041
I tried playing my friends rpg like it was a sandbox; I said "I split from the party and travel north until I meet something." And he had no content for me so I was forced to go back. He could tell what I was trying to do and denied me.

>>97889041
I like sandbox play. It is not a magic band-aid to issues with the group. It can side-step certain issues that are present in more linear campaigns, but it isn't some magic silver bullet to solve all campaign woes. You can utterly bungle a game in a sandbox in most of the same ways you can utterly bungle a linear campaign.

>>97889052
OP won't but I will, from the archives:
An Anon has shared an awesome AzteCKS campaign report. Check it out!

ttps://mega.nz/file/id51UZqa#9pZoBcVtOF3vssbZ4kON2WN9XAbGvSi-TStiB9nKTxY

>>97889879
Not OP. Get consistent with your standards.

>>97889041
You're close, but the actual solution to everyone's issues with TTRPGs is a greater willingness to compromise.
Are you running for a bunch of storyfags who hate combat, exploration, and survival? Compromise for them, and go as close to freeform as you need, as you all create a narrative together.
Is your group composed of people who are there for the game you all agreed upon? Compromise, and make sure you know the rules well enough to fill in any gaps of knowledge, that things are run consistently and fairly.
It's easier to talk to your group and find out what they want and be willing to compromise on that, than it is to take "the one CRAZY trick that doctors HATE" some shitposter on /tg/ is spouting off about as a universal truth.

All of the best campaigns I've either played in or run myself had had a clear goal or primary plot if some sort - not a prewritten plot, but something more focused than a sandbox. I've tried pure sandbox play as well, but I've not liked it all that much. Players wrecking whatever the GM had in mind and taking things to a different direction is fine, great even, but in my experience games tend to work better if there's some kind of a clear, strong starting scenario, at the very least.

>>97890792
My standards are “stop talking out your ass and provide tangible examples to prove your point or shut up”.

>>97890787
See, this anon fucking gets it.

OP sounds like he got BTFO in some other thread, so he made this one to "win" the argument.

>>97890905
Pretty much. Sandbox campaigns aren’t superior or inferior to a linear campaign in how much fun they produce, it’s about delivering the experience party came for to begin with. Honestly, I find that if you just work out an agreed upon overall goal for the party but otherwise let the players determine how they want to get there themselves, they’ll be a lot happier and less constrained overall than even in a sandbox campaign.

>>97890646
A sandbox is not "make some shit up in the fly". If you want to make a world to explore that feels good then you're going to have to prep and prep harder then any linear campaign since the players can go anywhere.

>>97890881
Okay, so the "in ur settan" slop thread spammer should stop talking out of his ass and provide tangible examples he plays games, or shut up.

>>97891266
Yes, just like how faggots like OP should be actually providing examples instead of talking out their asses. Spammers and OP are both scum worthy of derision. We don’t have to focus solely on one or the other, we can castigate both.

>>97891308
>we can castigate both
So where is your castigation for the "in ur settan" faggot?
Put up or shut up, remember?

File: 1775347108503353.png (313.2 KB)

313.2 KB PNG

>>97890787
The only good thing that guy ever wrote was this embarrassing meltdown after people ridiculed him for being a boring GM, and it's only good as a pure example of the cringiest sort of loser lashing out at everyone in total frustration.

>>97891314
I have no love for that tosser and he should be banned, but unless he posts in thread, his existence is irrelevant to everyone. Why the sudden obsession over this red herring?

>>97891337
lol you're still doing that
>I've been on a years long trolling campaign but it everyone else who's having a meltdown
bit

>>97891372
I'm honestly wondering how he even found the post at this point.
He must be sitting on the archive day in, day out, hammering F5 on certain key phrases, just waiting for his chance to try and shit up a thread.

>>97891338
>his existence is irrelevant to everyone
His existence is spamming up the board with nonsense threads, nonsense threads you seem to be absent from whenever they crop up, in spite of your expressed attitude for putting up or shutting up.
I just thought it was odd someone seemingly so vehemently opposed to threads that don't put up their own experiences with games is mysteriously absent from those threads and willing to deflect from the harm they've been doing.
But the fact you call him a "red herring" reveals your true nature.

You're a hypocrite, a liar, and a waste of resources.

>>97891372
>>97891396
>immediately trying to perform damage control
Nice try, but you're the guy who decided to try and shill your game in the /3eg/ during its last kickstarter and got laughed out by everyone there. That's when you had your super-cringe meltdown.
/tg/ doesn't forget that kind of faggotry easily, especially when it's known you'll start shitting yourself with even the slightest bit of pressure.

>>97891430
You're like a textbook on malignant narcissism. We've all seen it fish.

>>97891442
>"we" all agree with me!
>everyone who disagrees is one guy!
Oh boy, are you gearing up for another embarrassing "screaming into the void" meltdown?

>>97891404
Anon, that particular spammer is a faggot. OP is a faggot. Those are both facts. You are acting like the board can’t hate both wastes of space in the same thread. Or in an uncharitable light, you’re trying to change the topic to discuss some other loser in a case of whataboutism to divert attention away from calling out OP on being a vague posting lower talking out his ass. Either way, take your pills.

And I’m still waiting for those examples of play from OP to prove why sandbox campaigns are so great, btw.

>>97891404
All of those threads are full of people telling him to fuck off or asking about what game he's talking about.
You're also more than welcome to pose the question of examples to him yourself if you think it'd be hypocritical not to.

Just because somebody calls out one thread in particular doesn't suddenly make them the board police responsible for calling out every thread in exitsance.
All you're doing it providing cover for OP by suggesting that nobody can press him for details because there are worse threads out there. Meanwhile the ability to press everyone from details already exists, and you're the one wasting time by pretending a choice has to be made.

>>97891337
>Beelines for the only thread-relevant post and immediately starts dramaposting
Fuck off retard.

>>97891466
You looped back to repeating yourself very quickly that time.

Daily reminder that avatar use is a bannable offense, and everyone ITT should do their civic duty.

>>97889052
What's the point of a game where you already know what's going to happen?

>>97889071
What do you mean? The word improv was never used. How did you misinterpret the point of that discussion so badly?

>>97890962
Not hardly.

>>97893340
>>97893343
Vagueposter gonna vaguepost.

>>97893349
It's a quite straightforward question. Can you not answer it?

>>97893351
Are you capable of answering a question instead of asking another question?

>>97893340
Where do you see anyone endorse games where you already know what's going to happen?

>>97893340
No examples, I see. You’d think it’d be easy to provide some, but I guess you have no actual experience to draw from. Just like I expected.

>>97893347
Prove otherwise, vagueposter.

>>97890962
Yeah, prep is good. I'm not sure where you got the idea it should be completely improvised from.

>>97890925
Sandboxes are completely superior to a linear and railroaded game. Thinking otherwise just outs you as being completely institutionalized in your bad DMing.

>>97890854
I found the opposite to be true. Games tend to wind up a lot better if there's no clear goals at the start. You allow time for things to get rolling and snowball in conjunction with what the players decide to do. At the end of the day, the players are the ones in control of the game, and because of that things are kept interesting. Anytime you try to spin together some melodrama the players are purely expected to care about, it wont work out.

>>97890800
>You're close, but the actual solution to everyone's issues with TTRPGs is a greater willingness to compromise.
Compromise can be a fine thing. However in a game it's a lot better when things are managed within the guidelines of hard, understood, and felt rules that govern the worldspace. There's room for story, there's room for combat, there's room for survival, and these things are naturally in balance, and informing each other as things develop. The best way a game can run is by weaving together a world, and immersing players in it. The best immersion comes from the players making decisions, and those decisions carrying weight.

>>97890728
There's no solution to That Guys other than replacing them. However any game related issues have are absolutely solved by focusing on the gameworld.

>>97893555
Sandboxes are superior to railroaded games, but luckily there are other options besides those two.

>>97893563
Doesn't match my experience at all, but I guess the lesson here is just that different groups are indeed different.

>>97893549
>it should be completely improvised
I know how to improvise. I recommend it for sandbox play.

>>97893555
Are you going to bother to explain your reasoning or provide any examples of why you think this is true, or continue to posture like a peacock and provide nothing of substance?

>>97893576
In my experience, having no clear goals at all just leaves the players feeling uninterested in the proceedings of the game. But then again, my table often works out what they’re trying to accomplish as a party before the first session, whether it’s take down an evil emperor or going exploring to make mad cash, so they already have a game and goal they have some investment in.

>>97893680
>But then again, my table often works out what they’re trying to accomplish as a party before the first session, whether it’s take down an evil emperor or going exploring to make mad cash, so they already have a game and goal they have some investment in.
But that sounds like the wicked, dreaded session 0...to contribute more than a shitpost, though, that's what my group does as well. GM coming up with a basic premise and hashing out the details by talking things out with the players, and the GM having a plan for the campaign in mind but one he's not set in stone and will change as needed in response to player actions, is what's worked the best for my group.

>>97893365
Are you?

>>97893387
Ironic.

>>97894125
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

>>97893576
Yeah, some groups are better than others, and my group is better than yours.

>>97894149
Got any examples of play to prove it?

>>97893340
But you don't know, since RNG Is a thing so even if you go: out objective Is to save the princess and kill the Dragon anything could happen as an outcome.

>>97893555
>DM: hey guys in this game the objective Is going to point B!
VS
>Players: hey DM for this game we have decided we'll go to point B!
It's the exact same shit. You're still going to point B.

>>97894171
This is some impressive slave mentality.

>>97894149
Would you say that lacking a well-developed theory of mind makes life easier or more difficult for you, anon?

>>97894160
Aside from that, GM and the players can all throw all sorts of curveballs at each other.

>>97894235
And either way you had to come up with point B, so what work are you avoiding?

>>97894253
Just checking, do you think its the same if you go for a walk or if a cop walks you around the block?

>>97893680
Who said no goals?

>>97893343
LMAO it is him!

>sandbox play

some part of me feels irked this is even a specific term.

like, i dunno, obviously you can't play B4 The Lost City and just wander off into the desert (i mean, you COULD, but the book is about the dungeon).

modules are now written in that Dragonlance plot-based style to the point 'sandbox play' is exceptional. when, really, that's just playing a little game called 'Dungeons & Dragons'.

>>97894470
Can't wait when he makes another shitpost as he's getting BTFO once again ITT.

>>97893665
Are you?

>>97894160
So you already know the players are going to try to save the princess. The rest can be resolved by dice rolls. Since there are no decisions to make, you don't need players. So why'd you invite them?

>>97894470
Well? How'd you misinterpret it?

>>97894171
Obviously not the same at all, of course.

>>97894618
Where?

>>97894727
…Except if the dice decide that despite their best efforts, the party dies and fails to rescue the princess. Or if both the dragon and the princess die in the fight due to collateral damage. Or the bard convinces the dragon into letting them leave with the princess after paying tribute. Or any number of a bazillion things that could happen due to the dice rolls. Which you would know if you weren’t a permanent no-games loser that has never played a real campaign before. Loser.

>>97894275
Either way, *someone* had to build the road I'm walking on, regardless on whether I'm walking it because I feel like it or because I was told to.

>>97894470
Easy recognisable by multiple one-sentence replies that are just "nuh-uh", posted one minute apart.
As if he thought that if he makes multiple posts people won't notice it's the same retard.

>>97894933
I've posted 5 times in this thread. Identify all of them with links. :)

>>97895180
Still no examples of play, OP?

>>97895190
You're very bad at this.

>>97889041
Sandbox is so gods damned much work for the GM.

>Why yes, I am a troll. Now solve my riddle.
I'm not going to bother. But thanks for proving my point.

>>97895194
So, none. Got it. Thanks for showing everyone what kind of person you are. Aka a no-games loser.

>>97889041
>Everyone's issues with RPGs are solved when you do sandbox play.
Doesn't solve any of my issues.
>You don't need to prepare too much
We call that lazy GMing. If I'm a player, I expect the GM to put in the work instead of being a lazy faggot and making the game arbitrary with random bullshit.
>you don't need to force players along a track to a desired outcome
You don't need to do that with non-sandbox games, but I'd rather have a clear goal as a player and a clear tone to the game than wander around aimlessly with nothing interesting to do.
>players will want to explore the dungeons you've prepared
Ah I get it you only play D&Dogshit, no wonder you're such a retard. Dungeons are fucking boring, and only suit D&D and its clones.
>it's not possible to avoid content for very long when they track resources
See, now that's railroading.
>everybody wins
Unless you, as a player, want a coherent narrative with a series of cause and effect, in which case you can't have that with a sandbox. Everything has to be improvised, the GM can't pre-plan shit.

I'll take a railroading GM over a lazy GM any day.

Oh boy, another thread where a bunch of no-games argue about a bunch of germs that they don't actually know the meaning of! What a great thread, on a great board. This entire thing isn't a fucking humiliation ritual at all!

>>97895260
I mean at least there's one sincere post in the entire thread >>97890787

>>97889041
Those aren't my issues with RPGs. But you should feel free to play any style your table likes, anon.

>>97894275
>>97894737
It is, The GM is still the one who's going to create the road and what's there. Does it matter if he creates it before or after? No.

>>97894727
What's decided is the objective, not the result, retard.

>>97889041
As always, I'm here to point out this only applies if the only thing you play is dungeon crawlers over and over again. It doesn't really work for something like Call of Chutullu, any game with a mystery or an intricate conspiracy behind you need to prep for.

>>97895215
Nou

>>97894171
>point C, D, E, F doesn't exist, X, Y, Z
vs
>I prepared point B, we're doing point B, I know the outcome already, and if you try to do anything else then game night is cancelled

>>97895585
Post points C through Z from your last campaign.

>>97895585
>if you try to do anything else then game night is cancelled
Well, duh, If you want to do something else, you'll have to wait until the next session for me to prepare, that's why your option is to tell me your plans at the end of every session or via msg and
>I know the outcome already,
its bullshit you made up because you know you sound deranged

>>97895260
The Sandbox/Railroad/Prep threads are being made with such frequency that it's either one asspained autist, or its the mods looking for new ways to drum up activity since they've overplayed their hand with repetitive, protected threads.

>>97895291
>a faggoty shill post
Begone already.

>>97894488
How come? it's the word used in the books and by DMs online. I've often heard it used like "This adventure module opens up into a bit of a sandbox after this part"

>>97894878
>>97895542
Not just the road, but the towns, the countryside, the NPCs, the encounters, there's a lot more to a road than whether you are accosted by an encounter with the police.

>>97895211
Sandboxes are much easier because you need not flesh out too much before players decide to stumble upon things. A railroad is a lot of work because you have to decide exactly how things are meant to go, and then ensure that players are stuck on that path until the end.

>>97895232
>making the game arbitrary with random bullshit
This doesn't make any sense, it's no more arbitrary than your railroad, and it will also respect player decision making.
>I'd rather have a clear goal
You do have clear goals, they are what you set out to do, the goals you have decided upon.
>See, now that's railroading.
It's not, railroading isn't running out of arrows to shoot from your bow. That happened because you didn't buy enough. Player agency is respected.

>>97895927
Okay, but what if instead of deciding how things are meant to go, you give the players a rough direction, and then you flesh out everything along the way?
There are more options available than 'infinite content in every possible direction' and 'script'.

>>97895708
Then game night comes and I've reconsidered what I want to do and you still can't provide it. At a certain point you need to have a worldspace that is good enough to play in already, or it becomes a zeno paradox.
If you already made up the rails of some adventure then you already know a lot of outcomes, I could see that being pretty boring.

>>97895934
That's how sandboxes work, they have several rough directions and the players decide what they want. There's not infinite content, but there is most definitely some content.

is the railroad bad guy still crashing out that he lost?

>>97895938
> Then game night comes and I've reconsidered what I want to do and you still can't provide it
Then that’s on you for not communicating that before game night and demanding the GM do something about it. Consider how little a player is asked to bring, aka themselves, a character sheet, and a willingness to play. If they still can’t pull their thumb out of their ass after spending a week sucking on it, the problem is on the player for being an indecisive twit and not the GM.

>>97895938
>>97895938
>Then game night comes and I've reconsidered what I want to do
Not my fault that you're an indecisive faggot, you had an entire week to declare your intentions and failed, sounds like a you problem.
> you already know a lot of outcomes,
You know what would happen if the players don't intervine. You do not know what happens when the players DO intervine.
Preparing gives you some guidelines on how the scenery will react even in the most deranged of situations.
You are very obsesses with a GM writing "solutions" and that's your main fault: a DM doesn't write solutions it writes problems. and the players see what they can (or can't) do about it.
And if you have an intended solution and the players bypass it, that's also part of the story, a part you'll never get to enjoy if you just randomize and improvise everything.

>>97895996
You could never account for last minute changes on your end with your style of DMing.

>>97896050
I'll be curious, how do you think game night plays out exactly? Because I GM regularly and never had an issue with asking a player "cool, what would you be interesting on doing next session?"

>>97896050
At this point, the problem is clearly not the GM if the player is an indecisive retard.

>>97896050
>>97896050
Got any examples of the last time you had to account for a last minute change of plans from your players?

>>97895927
Planning content isn't a bad thing but forcing outcomes is a bad thing.

>>97894802
Except nothing.

>>97895211
No, railroading is. When the party leaves the rails, I have to do work to put them back on the rails. When I don't railroad, I don't have to do that. Less work.

>>97895232
Why should the Gm put in work? You certainly aren't going to.

>>97889041
My main game is Call of Cthulhu. Sandbox play doesn’t really work for that and even if I do a sandbox, I still need a LOT of prep to have a good mystery to solve.

>>97895613
C Coldstone Outpost
D Soda Shallows
E Mallow Marsh
F Port Caramel
G Cinnamon Sands Outpost
H Banana Cove
I Chocken Isle
J Berry's Folly
K Peppermint Grove
L Jolly Rancher Lagoon
M Brown Sugar Bay
N Peanut Peninsula
O Vanilla Cliffs
P Snickerdoodle Atoll
Q Gingerbread Reef
R Frosting Falls
S Fort Strawberry
T Butterford's Spring
U Gummi Isle
V Mint Spires
W Blackfeather Retreat
X Scaleback's Place
Y Gharbad's Promise
Z Hornbill Cove

File: feast.jpg (210.7 KB)

210.7 KB JPG

>>97896762
Wendy's energy

>>97896813
Shelby's Determination

>>97896607
That dismissive attitude is the reason nobody gives a shit about the games you run, you wanker.

>>97896614
Further proof you don’t play games, since at its base railroading is the GM going “No, you don’t” ad infinitum to whatever they don’t like. A sandbox requires you to actually give a shit and not just make shit up constantly, but to also justify that shit’s presence constantly. Retard.

>>97896940
No, you're just wrong, sorry.

>>97896947
>refuses to argue his case
>stamps his feet like a child and just goes “no u” because he knows he has no rebuttal
I accept your concession.

>>97896953
So were you going to argue yours? Or is that only a requirement for other people? lol

A good sandbox is massively harder to create and maintain than a good linear narrative. Most people are not the gods of improv they think they are, and most world building enthusiasts aren't good at making engaging content for players. So at a certain point when we're all adults with jobs and lives outside of the game it's easier to just ask the players to just buy into whatever the GM has planned instead of meandering around waiting for something interesting to catch your attention or having your own goals within the game. This is why so many sandbox games fizzle out. You're boring and your way of play requires more buy-in than most people are willing to give.

>>97898039
I already did, but I will do it again. The idea that sandboxes are “easier” to create than a linear adventure is a lie perpetuated by people that have never properly run one. A proper sandbox game is not solely about freedom of choice, it’s about providing opportunities and set pieces that allow for choices meaningful to the players and their goals. A sandbox full of nothing but dungeons is worthless to players looking to play kingsmaker, for instance. Or another way of looking at it, a player group that decides they want to explore all the corners of the map for the fun of exploration will necessitate the creation of unique civilizations, landmarks, ruins, species, and even obstacles between traveling locations to make the players feel accomplished by surviving what other travelers could not. All the kinds of shit that you can’t just improv on the spot without looking and sounding as lazy as your table will realize you are.

Sandbox campaigns can be fun. They can be rewarding. But they’re exhausting if you actually give a shit about delivering a good one. If all one thinks a sandbox game is just going “uhhhhhh there’s orcs here now fight them” perpetually, they’re not running a sandbox game. They’re being lazy dipshits that don’t respect their table’s time.

>>97898151
No, the inverse is the lie perpetuated by idiots like you who have never run anything. I run sandboxes because they're easier and more fun.

>>97898304
>again provide no actual counter argument or examples to back up his claims
>again stamps his feet like a child and just goes “no u” because he knows he has no rebuttal
Until you actually provide something worth talking about, I’ll take this as your further concession to my claims. Have a nice day, no-games.

>>97898345
Where are your arguments and examples? Your post is just a bunch of assertions. Where's the part that's supposed to convince me of anything?

Good to know you agree sandboxes are objectively better, bitch :)

>>97889041
My issue with TTRPGs is solved when I play something entirely different, as I am not interested in playing them to begin with. This at least I have in common with the people discussing them here.

>>97898427
>keeps going “bu-bu-bu-no u!”because he has nothing
Lol
I’m not the one making stupid claims and demanding others make my arguemenrs for me

>>97898482
What do you do then, play card games all day? Or are you more of a board games kind of guy?

>>97898494
Boardgames! Great fun.

>>97889041
But preparing dungeons is railroading, dont make the players determine what environment they're in

>>97898071
>everyone should just lower their standards so we can pretend for a few hours and go home
I see

>>97898151
>A proper railroaded game is not solely about freedom of choice, it’s about providing opportunities and set pieces that allow for choices meaningful to the players and their goals. A railroad full of nothing but dungeons is worthless to players looking to play kingsmaker, for instance. Or another way of looking at it, a player group that decides they want to explore all the corners of the map for the fun of exploration will necessitate the creation of unique civilizations, landmarks, ruins, species, and even obstacles between traveling locations to make the players feel accomplished by surviving what other travelers could not. All the kinds of shit that you can’t just prepare weeks ahead of schedule without looking and sounding as controlling as your table will realize you are.

>Railroaded campaigns can be fun. They can be rewarding. But they’re exhausting if you actually give a shit about delivering a good game. If all one thinks a railroaded game is just going “uhhhhhh there’s orcs here now fight them” perpetually, they’re not running a railroaded game. They’re being storyfagging dipshits that don’t respect their table’s agency.

>>97898991
I see what you’re trying to pull, it none of what you wrote makes actual sense, you retard. Point is, nobody goes to an ice cream store that sells 52 flavors if they’re either out of every flavor but vanilla or just sell 52 variants of vanilla like most “sandbox” games with zero preparation tend to be like. A good sandbox game requires preparation if you want your players to be engaged and actively looking for stuff to do. A bad sandbox dumps the players out into a world with nothing interesting to do, and nothing to draw the players’ attention or interest. They won’t give a shit about there being no rails, because they have nothing specific or unusual to interact with until the GM farts out a random encounter. Which at that point might as well be a linear campaign because they’re still dependent on the GM providing all the content, yo they’re just free to either wander randomly until the GM pulls something out his ass, sit there and do nothing, or go home.

>have to have something ready if the players want to go to the nearby forest
>have to have something ready if the players want to go the nearby mountain
>have to have something ready if the players want to play politics in town
>have to have something ready if the players want to amass an army against the king
>have to have something ready if the players want to become bandits
>have to have something ready if the players want to do whatever

Sounds like a lot more work

>none of what you wrote makes actual sense
to be fair you need a high iq to understand the effort that goes into crafting your epic donut steel story and forcing the players at it every opportunity they have to make a "decision"

>>97899055
see >>97898947

>>97899501
Forcing to what

>>97898427
>Your post is just a bunch of assertions.
The premise of the thread is the assertion that all RPG issues are solved by sandbox play. The very first post is asking for examples.

Stop being hypocritical and complaining that other people only make assertions when all you've done the entire thread is make vague assertions or parrot other people.

>>97899528
Examples of what

>>97889041
Not really. Sandbox play brings a different and even more annoying set of problems to the table, which you would know if you ran games.

>>97899533
You asked for examples here >>97898427
So give me the type of examples you think are convincing towards the benefits of sandbox play.

>>97889041
"All players are the same."

Nope. Factually wrong right out the gate.

>>97899563
The entire point of this threads Is "you can only run one type of game and everything else Is badwrong fun"

>>97899581
Oh, it's the absolute moron who got himself chased out of OSR threads. That makes sense.

>>97898151
- sandboxes are easier is a lie
asserted without evidence.

- choices meaningful to the players and their goals
we are agreed. no one ever argued otherwise.

- full of nothing but dungeons
no one said sandboxes contain only dungeons.

- can't improv
no one said you have to improvise everything in a sandbox. there is also nothing wrong with improvising everything on the spot. if the players aren't satisfied, they are more than welcome to a full refund of the cost of the game (zero dollars).

- good sandboxes are exhausting
asserted without evidence.

So are you going to actually support your position, or should we skip to your 3 day for trolling outside of b?

>>97899602
Given there was exactly one attempt at a serious reply in the entire thread and he immediately started screaming about shills?
105%

>>97899055
>have to figure out how to force the players to the forest if that's where the railroad is
>have to figure out how to force the players to the mountains if that's where the railroad is
>have to figure out how to force the players to the town if that's where the railroad is
>have to figure out how to force the players to gather an army if that's where the railroad is
>have to figure out how to force the players to become bandits if that's where the railroad is

hey you're right, railroading IS a lot more work! you've convinced me. I'll run sandboxes from now on.

>>97899523
can't read?

>>97899537
Yeah, the empty set. lol

>>97889041
>>97899640
>Everyone's issues with RPGs are solved when you do sandbox play.
Initial assertion, still waiting on evidence

>You don't need to prepare too much,
No examples given

>you don't need to force players along a track to a desired outcome,
No examples given
>players will want to explore the dungeons you've prepared,
Asserted without evidence

>it's not possible to avoid content for very long when they track resources,
Asserted without evidence

>It's easier to not railroad players.
Asserted without evidence

Still waiting on you to support your position or give examples like >>97889052 asked for OP.

>>97899640
If you’re really wondering why I’m so dismissive of those kind of campaigns, sure, I can play that game. Played in a couple, tried to run one myself. All of them fizzled out, but for different reasons.

The ones I participated in just generally died cause the GMs just stopped caring. They weren’t incompetent or anything, but when they saw our party mostly sticking to the starting location instead of getting out to explore the world, it got messy. One straight up ran out of shit to improv for the starting town and had to outright beg us to leave to get on with the game before eventually admitting they lost interest, the other just didn’t have the nerve to say anything and never called for another session.

My personal experience was with a mixture of self-involved players and a bunch of follower types. And despite telling them it wasn’t a sandbox game, they generally just jumped at the very first adventure hook or set piece I mention in a scene, no matter what it was. And while I didn’t mind, after a few sessions everyone at the table agreed they just weren’t feeling this one game since the followers didn’t care one way or the other what they were doing and the self-motivators got tired of having to be the ones driving things all time. And while I’d put in a lot of time to make the world feel fleshed out, I agreed to scrap the game and reuse the material I wrote for another campaign in the future since the players weren’t into it and that was more important.

So, yeah. In my experience, people like the idea of a sandbox more than actually running one. Nowadays, I let the table form a specific goal but then let them players figure out how they want to get there. Like if they wanted get to an unexplored continent, but needed an airship. They could either do jobs to buy one, join a crew of an airship for passage, steal an airship, whatever. It honestly seems to motivate my table more than a sandbox campaign would motivate them.

>>97899703
If you mean "the empty set of players that actually want to play sandbox games" you would be correct.

>>97899785
Stop entertaining the troll.

>>97899859
Fair, but at least I abided by my own retarded principles.

>>97899871
Actually, I retract my statement, it was a good post that you wrote it even if it was a reply to a bait. People talking about their games is worth it.

>>97889041
Good thing I don't have any issues to fix then.

>>97890962
No, thats railroading, you need to calibrate yourself

>>97899738
>Tell me how to run sandbox pls
pay me

>>97899785
>the campaigns came to a halt
>for unrelated reasons
interesting

>>97899785
>they generally just jumped at the very first adventure hook or set piece I mention in a scene
The problem?

>>97895232
What a lazy playoid

>>97895708
That's too gatd for players though, that requires agency

>>97895938
What an entitled faggot

>>97898976
Go fill out a job application smeglord

>>97900125
Thank you, good sir.

>>97900220
See, as a GM, it wasn’t a problem for me one bit cause I came prepared with a bunch of different options so that I never had to force any choice upon the players. Sandbox, remember? But when we discussed the campaign post-mortem, the players admitted that they either a) were rather troubled by “not knowing what to do” but didn’t want to speak up, or cause a fuss, or b) Just wanted to do something that session without needing to plan out what they wanted. So it’d be they would ask something like, example if there were any dungeons to go to. So I’d flip through my notes to point out several areas that matched it, and they’d just pick the first every time without pondering the other choices just to get to the action for that session.

Really, what it boiled down to was that my table just didn’t jive with a pure sandbox experience due to finding it more directionless than they’d like. They were fine with the setting, fine with their characters, and I tried to be as hands off as a GM should be. But they’re there at my table for only so many hours at a time, sometimes after a long work week, and most of them explicitly just want to sit down and roll dice and leave the planning to those of us who cared, so we collectively agreed to just move on from that particular campaign to something more limited in scope and goal focused for the table.

>>97899581
Ironic how that statement railroads readers into one genre

>>97900200
>pay me
You haven't shown that it does what you claim it does, let alone anything to suggest you're capable of teaching people how to do it.
Provide evidence to support your position or you're a scam artist.

>>97900547
The burden of proof is on you, dumbass

>>97901201
Why?

>>97901315
Prove that it's not right now, three references

>>97900547
>>97901201
this ain't a debate

>>97901327
Why?

>>97901338
>>97901383
Why?

>>97901395
Cause this troll is clearly running out of fumes and brain cells.

>>97901399
Sweetie, I'm tired of carrying the relationship, your pussy isn't worth it anymore

>>97901420
Gay

>>97901448
Buck up champ, I'm sure you'll fix yourself one day

I wonder when the mods will delete this sad, gay thread, and ban this lame troll for real.

>>97900547
Why would I show you what it does when I told you in the OP what it does. It's obvious from the start of the thread why it's great, why it's valuable, why anyone should strive for it. It's the gold standard of RPG play. If you read back through the thread you will clearly see some anons with a 'good enough' complacency, or those who want hand outs. When I would rather just have discussions about playstyles instead. On a long enough timeline you will the advantages crop up, and you will see those trying to derail it.

check this post >>97896050
read the replies to such a straightforward assessment.
>When we sit down at the table and I've changed my mind on what I want to do during the session, you cannot play, because nothing you prepared is ready for that game
What happens during the other style of play, well you just sit down and you play the game. Incredible stuff really.

>>97900388
It sounds like they might not have had good character backstories?

>>97899836
kek desperate damage control

>>97899859
I agree, people should stop feeding you

>>97899785
Ok. My experience is the opposite. Just so you know, when people ask for evidence, they're not requesting stories. It doesn't matter if you've played one bad game or a trillion. That doesn't constitute a proof of a system's or a game structure's design flaws. What does constitute proof, is proof. Like, for example, showing by way of syllogism or induction that a particular form of play inevitably leads to bad experiences for all conceivable groups at all times and all places and all contexts. Since there exist people who enjoy sandbox games and don't run into any problems with them, you won't be able to do this.

>>97900388
Why would you need to be told what to do?

>>97901618
Yeah, when will they ban you?

>>97901618
Mods not only intentionally let trolls destroy the board, they actively protect them and give 3-day bans to people calling them out.