Is there a bigger red flag for a shit campaign than "political intrigue"?
Sandbox. It either isn't, is and everything is a waste of time and GM will be a bitch with information because we are supposed to explore or the players all have divergent agendas and the game becomes a fucking mess.
>>47274037
Homebrew allowed.
>>47274087
Does anyone but the GM ever attempt that? Seriously?
>>47274083
this 100%
>>47274037
Selected game is about X (most of the time kiling shit) but the purpose of the campaign is another.
>>47274037
>>47274083
>>47274087
Pretty much just nailed it on the head here
>>47274083
Do hexcrawls count as sandbox? Is that what people really want when they say sandbox?
>>47274037
>>47274190
So what are your ideas of great campaigns, anons ?
ITT bad personal experiences = objectively bad subject matter
>>47274302
But political intrigue stuff has come up in many anons' bad personal experiences. Moreso than other types of campaigns.
>>47274037
>>47274083
>>47274087
so the only games that are allowed to exist are by the book, run of the mill murder hobo express?
are you guys fucking retarded?
>>47274409
If we're talking about D&D, yes. That's where the political intrigue hate comes from because the GM won't use another game.
>>47274409
I run sandbox games and
>will be a bitch with information
stands out to me. A lot of gm's refuse to tell things about the setting to the players.
When being up to speed on lore and knowing what's going on in the setting is essential.
I usually have players choose a place they're from and a real job background, then use that so if they ask questions they can know general things based on their background.
>>47274302
That's the exact point of the thread.
fucking pay attention
>>47274355
Weird, for me it was the Door-Monster-Treasure trope.
Or the magical realm one, but I'm keeping it off the stats
>D20 outside of D&D or its clones
>>47274037
>political intrigue
>and it's D&D
>>47274409
Sorry to say it anon, but most people dont play d&d like you do with your World of Weeaboo-craft. We actually care about character interaction, development, dialog, and generally having fun. Not click-to-accept-quest-now-go-murder
>>47274527
Well magical realm really isn't a campaign type it's more of a bad feature that can show up anywhere. What's that trope?
>>47274471
>I usually have players choose a place they're from and a real job background, then use that so if they ask questions they can know general things based on their background.
is that not common practice? i though doing that or something similar would just be a given.
>>47274454
>If we're talking about D&D, yes.
so you are not aloud to have political intrigue in a universe with politics? if there is anything close to a form of government there will always be political battles, pretending there isn't is just retard. unless you run a game with explicitly murder hobos and refuse to involve any amount of intellectual stimulation i guess its fine to leave that stuff out.
>>47274576
did you reply to the wrong post? cuz you're agreeing with that anon
>>47274576
>actually care about character interaction
>defending the anons who think the only way to play is by the book with no room for home brew or intellectual simulation.
>>47274616
this
Homebrew automatically allowed without the DM first looking over the class, race, what-have-you beforehand.
>>47274593
There's a difference between having political intrigue and centering your game around political intrigue. D&D is not ideal for it because it's built for dungeon crawling and has combat focus.
>>47274593
>and refuse to involve any amount of intellectual stimulation
The point of it is that political intrigue is fucking stupid, because the people involved don't have the intellectual capacity to actually make it good. They force conflict for the sake of conflict, and set up political situations that only exist for the sake of existing, with no good justification.
>>47274409
Are you? because you can't seem to read and make up a whole lot of shit
>>47274658
i can agree with that
>>47274593
A lot of failed sandbox campaign happen because the gm refuses to tell a single thing about the setting. They'll start players off in a street in a town and refuse to tell them the name of the town unless they specifically ask an npc. Then the npc requires that the players fetch something to learn the name of the town.
Like, information and acquiring it is an important part of the strategic gameplay in a sandbox but players need a solid grounded base of info to be able to make sense of the sandbox.
>>47274674
what? how does that response make sense?
>>47274593
>>47274576
False dichotomy. You can have those things without trying to turn D&D into GoT.
Yes.
"Mature game"
>>47274616
>>47274632
My point being is that anon is bitching that you can't have a interesting game without homebrew bullshit or "political" batshit.
rpgs are not about "le intellectual stimulation" or character interaction, if you want that go read a book fuck
its about leveling your character and playing the game
>>47274697
Because I'm not the one calling red flags a sign that murder-hoboing is the optimal way to game.
A lots of fucking leap in logic
>>47274037
>That image
>>47274709
Oh fuck, forgot about that one.
Intrigue only works if intrigue elements only start getting introduced like 8 or 10 sessions in.
By then the players are familiar with the politics, npc's etc and are creating their own plots.
The problem of trying to make an intrigue campaign is that you're trying to start off session one in a gametype that requires the players to have a lot of knowledge of the politics and for them to give a shit about the politics of the area.
>>47274688
i had no idea that Gm's where that stupid...
>>47274721
>rpgs are not about...
that's where you're wrong.
role playing games are about having fun with friends and interacting... if you wanna get big numbers go play a fucking MMO and stop ruing the table top community with your "get big numbers" bull shit.
>>47274752
It usually happens when bob is like "Hey guys, let's try a sandbox campaign!" wen bob has never ran a sandbox and none of the players have either.
So it ends up being a very detailed world that doesn't have anything to actually do in it or anything really interesting and bob stops the campaign three sessions in, then blames the players for not understanding how to play a sandbox.
>>47274734
>A lots of fucking leap in logic
not really if for you a "red flag" is a dm showing a glimmer of originality and creativity, its not to far to assume your optimal game style is a "by the book murder hobo fetch quest extravaganza
>optimal way to game
then what is your "optimal way to game"?
>>47274860
Ah I see, you are just butthurt that people don't see sandbox or your homebrew as a good draw for a game.
I'll explain.
Most people are terrible. Terrible things are not liked. Sandboxes and homebrews are mostly terrible. Thus people don't like sandboxes and homebrews.
>>47274799
>role playing games are about having fun with friends and interacting...
I don't need the pretext of a game to do that. If we sit down to play a game I want there to be more substance to it than "having fun and interacting"
>>47274037
"Realistic" or "gritty". Red flag X5 COMBO if used together.
>>47274910
alright fair enough
>New player and his gf
This has happened a couple times, once recently. The gf is never interested, doesn't know how to play, doesn't bother to learn, and is doing other shit during the session.
Most recent example:
>She was "too shy" to talk the first session, so the bf played for her
>Was playing DotA or something the entire first two sessions
>Clearly was not interested in playing
To make this example worse, the weak piece of shit bf enabled her every step of the way.
>>47274968
then to be more specific, what is your idea of "substance?" what is it you want/expect from a game?
>>47274982
eh, gritty, I can live with since it's a buzzword for anything wild west or post apocalyptic thing. I will give you on realistic.
If speaking combos, I will never buy a game that advertises it to be fast paced but have deep gameplay. It's a sure fire sign that neither has been achieved.
>>47274037
"Hey guys, do you wanna play a campaign? I've got this awesome story in mind, and I can't wait for you to see it!"
>>47274982
Realistic is my red flag. Gritty is one thing, I mean to say, it is a thing, realistic is hardly ever indicative of the campaign as much as it's a sign that I should avoid the DM.
When a game is described as realistic I always take it to mean that the DM is going to impose his world view on things and have no flexibility at all with them. They'll fall back on justifying any contention with their game as just being realistic, and at best there's a debate on whether or not realistic is better than balanced, or flavourful, and at worst they'll have no fucking clue how something actually works and be taking their idea of realistic off some unresearched work or a piece that never sold itself as realistic in the first place.
>>47274037
Homebrew rules. Because thats how you end up with bullshit like "PCs earn a ability point every level and a feat every other level, plus all other bonus associated with their class"
Yeah that happened once
>>47274750
I wish more people actually learned from Game of Thrones instead of just trying to cram every single thing they thought was cool without any thought or understanding of what made it work in the first place. Look at how it starts: There's some actiony shit with snow zombies, then we meet Sean Bean and his kids and they find some puppies, then his best friend comes for a visit. There's barely a whiff of any political dealings more complex than a marriage arrangement until the Starks get to King's Landing, by which point the main characters are fairly well established and we've learned enough about the setting that we can follow what's going on. That happens in, what, episode 3? I can't remember how far into the book that is, but it's a decent chunk.
>>47274968
>I want there to be more substance to it than "having fun and interacting"
>rpgs are not about "le intellectual stimulation" or character interaction, if you want that go read a book fuck
If you don't want to think or have in character conversations, it sounds like you just want mindless violence. Rolling to disarm the occasional trap isn't really "substance."
>>47275014
Was this online? If not just implement a 'no phone rule' unless they're rolling with it or looking up a rule/spell list.
>>47274982
I'd say "dark and realistic" is a worse combo sign than the "gritty" one. Or unironically describing the setting as "grimdark".
gotta admit it would be fun to have players roll up sats and optimize themselves for combat only to get stuck in political drama
>>47275093
It was online.
If it was real life, I take people's phones. Or shut down the wifi if it is my place.
>>47274037
>The story is the most important thing in this game
This is code for 'i want you all to be good little puppets while i lead you by the hand on what really could have just been a novel'
>>47275123
The issue with D&D political intrigue is PCs get stuff like Zone of Truth and Tongues incredibly early and that's if they don't decide to use their high power level to brute force things and don't feel threatened enough by the consequences. Then there's those who feel D&D has half-assed social mechanics or those that believe it shouldn't have any at all.
>>47274577
The "only dungeon raiding" one ; the one that every fucking problem is to be solved by raiding a dungeon, killing the monster there and loot the place ; that trope divide itself in the dungeon, as each room as a door (trapped or locked), a monster, and a loot. NPCs interaction next to 0 except for quest givers and merchants
And unfortunately, yes, magical realm can be an entire campaign with the "good" setting
>>47274672
Then you are playing with not the right people for it. Does it means that all the players in the world can't do good political intrigue ?
I find for finding good intrigue games, find games that describe themselves as "kingdom building" or "domain management" rather than using the word intrigue.
>>47275610
Just like good sandboxes are really hexcrawls.
>>47274037
>"""narrative"""
Sick and fucking tired of these liberal art cunts who think they're better than everyone because they wrote an interactive novel they want to torture innocent players with. These elitist cunts can't even understand that Gygax invented D&D *explicitly* to loot the dungeon because he was sick of wargaming skirmishes, and trying to glorify the game as anything more than that is a literal slap in the face of Gygax's memory.
>>47275632
It's odd, I don't think a game has to be a classic hexcrawl to be a good sandbox but on the other hand; I've never seen a good sanbox that didn't involve a hexgrid for the map.
>>47275732
Gygax was a shithead, and I have no problem with larger narratives or even narrativist systems, but if the GM is going to be a crybaby about his super cool story because a player did something he didn't account for, or going to railroad to prevent the same, then he can get well and proper fucked
https://youtu.be/SkGFw2BI_g8
>>47275732
Jesus Christ, Youtube comments for Queen videos aren't this obsessively devoted to defending the memory of someone who's legacy is doing just fine as is. And I wouldn't be complaining about elitism in the same post where I claim my way of playing imaginary funtime adventures is objectively better than everyone else's. Glass houses, friendo.Virt? Is that you?
The thing about gygax is that there were better adventure writers, game designers, editors, writers and world builders from the same time as him.
>>47276113
It's true, but you've got to give Gygax credit where credit is due: If it weren't for him none of those people would have had the chance to show their talent, or even known they had a talent for this specific thing.
In my experience at least it isn't so bad.
One of the better games I've played was an Ice and Fire political intrigue game.
>>47274037
For me it's
"So I've written my own rules for a tabletop"
Why do so many of my friends do this?
They aren't writers, they have jobs.
They don't have time to make something good.
If they put nearly as much effort into writing a campaign as they did with coming up with 'muh rules' then they might have something good but instead they've wasted their own time on something that's just a bunch of mechanics in a story that's got no depth.
>>47274709
I ONLY PLAY MATURE GAMES FOR MATURE PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF.
>>47274824
which usually happens when joe gets tired of dming and tosses the reigns to bob for a set.
random tables are your friend.
>>47274293
>no responses
Figures.
For the record, any campaign that can actually get a motherfucker to roleplay is a good one in my book.
>>47274037
Post more cute anime girls with question marks
>>47274037
How would you run it well? Give each player an allied part of the faction to run?
>>47277052
A good campaign is a good campaign
>>47274037
>'The theme of the campaign is mystery and secrecy'
Funny, my biggest red flag has always been human only games in a dms personal hombrew setting.
Welcome to a world of being drug down the plot by npcs that explain the world. Also, all these non humans? Better than you at everything. These humans from area X? Better then you and are justified in everything they do. The gods? Hate you and dont you fucking forget it.
I am damn near done with any and every hombrew setting.
>>47274982
>>47275076
>>47275119
This, a thousand times this. Every time a DM has done "realistic" it always meant martials are getting fucked and casters are getting dysentery.
>>47277356
thats not bad if the system is coc or dg
>>47275732
Oh well la dee da, Captain Murderhobo. Who the fuck said anything about D&D? D&D is fucking garbage specifically because without a narrative it is just a videogame that you play extremely slowly on a piece of cardboard. The narrative is what -makes- the fucking hobby, and if you don't understand that then I don't even know what you want out of your TTRPGs.
>>47277487
It was, in order, Pathfinder, D&D 3.5, Mage: The Ascension, and then back to Pathfinder.
Last one collapsed 4 sessions in and I decided to DM instead. I'm not even very good, but it's better than the clusterfuck that the last guy kept trying to run.
>>47274037
Evil alignment campaign.
>>47277560
Were they all done by the same guy?
>>47277614
Yes.
>>47275119
either way, the campaign's probably gonna be full of rape. it's only realistic, jeez.
"This is going to be a role-play focused game"
It either is the most murder hobo of murder hobo games, or a WoD-type angst fest
>>47274193
I have never done a hexcrawl, but they seem immensely fun.
>>47275859
>Gygax was a shithead
Shut the fuck up you millennial cum stain.
>>47278965
>implying screenshots of claims made by anonymous idiots is evidence
>>47274409
No, what they're saying is that majority of DMs are shit and murderhobo express gets it's job done even with a shit DM while anything else is a disappointment from the higher expectations
>>47277089
>girls
>>47274083
>>47274037
>>47274087
>It's a homebrew with homerules political intrigue sandbox
>using 3.5
The only bigger red flag than this is going into the house and seeing that everyone is member of some hate group. Which hates you.
>>47274037
sandbox by far.
So many DMs dont know how to make sandbox games that give your players a lot of options. They try to base it on video games, instead of making a world where you can go anywhere and do anything, but there is only a set amount of places that will move the plot that the DM has to inform the player of (this is why i dont play CoC with new players, last time one of em decided that science it's a open game, he will go to chicago to search for some tome about some randome ritual that they needed to learn about. Compleatly ignored the fact that i informed them that there was a profesor visiting the town who was a expert on such things. We were playing in alaska...).
>>47279412
Does it have to constitute evidence?
It's not like you posted evidence of him being a "shithead".
>>47274037
>Is there a bigger red flag for a shit campaign than "political intrigue"?
Yes, a much more severe one.
>We'll be playing Dungeons and Dragons!
>>47277374
Sounds like you need to play with better GMs rather than bitching about subjective personal experiences.
>>47280439
>oho d&d is universally regarded as terrible so let me be contrarian and make a memepost
D&D is so bad that it's like a parasitic brain fungus that permanently damages its host's ability to roleplay.
It's hardly any different than a fucking wargame, and that's not surprising given its origins. Some people may like wargames, but D&D has convinced its hordes of gullible players that it's the only /real/ RPG, and so we have to deal with misguided wargaming enthusiasts trying to impose their incredibly alien standards on the actual roleplaying community.
I can safely say that D&D and its derivatives are the most toxic elements of this hobby.
>>47280557
You need to have fucking mechanical rules to play a game jackass. If all you're doing is roleplaying, then all you're having is a magical tea party.
>>47280383
Race as class.
>>47280592
It's not rules that are the problem, any good game has rules defining play, it's the fact that D&D is fundamentally a wargame focused on combat. Everything about its design springs from engaging enemies in encounters.
The fact that you think this sort of disgustingly single-minded focus is necessary to have structured play is evidence of the brain damage you have received for playing that wretched game.
>>47280557
dude. chill. put that bait down and stop trying to swallow it whole.
>>47280756
If he's talking about 3.PF, he's not far off the mark. 4e and 5e are fine, though.
Yes. Here's a list.
>Multiverse
>Trapped in a video game
>Slice-of-life
>"(Insert here)-folk have replaced humans in this setting".
>ITT: Brainwashed Dndaboos bashing other playstyles because their little pet system can't handle them.
>>47280436
Unless you are willing to provide, my opinion and observations will not change.
>>47281119
>STOP HAVING FUN I DON'T LIKE
>>47277427
how's that? Mine "realistic" game was quite contrary, it was gloryfying martials and one big "fuck you" towards bathrobe faggots and altarboy fuckers
>>47280818
>>Trapped in a video game
I fucking hate this. It's like taking a video game and turning up all the potential exploits and dungeon runs up to 10 and turning down the consequences to 0, because you're pretending to pretend to play a fucking videogame.
>>47281274
reading comprehension
I've noticed that, for online games, if the GM has a sleeping disorder (which has been the case for like 5/8 from /tg/, strangely) that it's usually coupled with social disorders as well, and/or it's the product of their insomnia. Irritable, short-sighted, lazy, etc. However, it's also come with bigotry and elitism, and that ain't insomnia.
Which, strangely, they also always bring up their sleeping disorder as like, the first or second thing I find out about them every time. As soon as we sit down for character-generation or something,
> "lol, no, I haven't slept in like eight days."
> "That sucks."
> "It's no big deal, I'm just an insomniac."
> "Stress?"
> "No, I have [dangerous/rare/bizarre mental and/or social disorder]. It's fine."
> "Oh, okay."
> [bails externally]
The first five I sat through all ended after some sperg got in an argument with them over some in-game event, and instead of kicking them they disbanded the entire party, and/or they exhibited increasingly aggressive ass-hattery as time progressed.
As such, if the first thing the GM tells me about themselves is that they have a sleeping disorder, I'm out.
>>47280806
>>47280756
As someone who despises D&D, 2nd was fine and 3.X is playable if you don't splat it to hell and back, but any group I've played with the story 99% of the time.
>>47281643
>Don't splat it to hell and back
Niggawut. The most broken shit in 3.PF is all in the corebook.
>>47281621
>people, whose brains operate outside the normal parameters are crazy
news at 11.
>>47278965
>shithead
>murders innocent animals with assault weapons
>religious fanatic
>unfaithful to his wife
>hypocrite, given both of the above combined
>litigious
>fine with enabling problematic gamers
>fine with enabling problematic concepts in gaming (racism, as in race X is unable to do Y).
>alcoholic
>betrayed his friendship with David
Face it, anon, he wasn't a shithead, he was a shitlord, and the sooner we can bury his influence and legacy on the game, the sooner it will be more accommodating for underprivileged social fractions, a core principle of social equity and justice w/r/t accessibility.
>>47282103
Dumb baitposter
>>47274037
People who have red flags.
Throughout the entirety of this thread, I've found out that pretty much everything is in the nono badwrong club to these red flag people.
Someone who freaks out this easily over such minor issues is not a good player or GM.
>adventurer guild
>weebshit in general
>le mature, dark and gritty campaign
>no humans as a playable race
>politics-focused
>>47274575
>It is D&D
>>47282268
When will we learn that "red flag" is just another word for triggers?
People who have a long triggerlist are to be avoided.
>>47282103
Define assault weapons.
>>47274037
B-but I like political intrigue.
My first good GM was all about it.
Everyone started factions inside of a larger government and we all worked to better it in our own ways and we had fun RPing with a diverse cast of NPCs all with their own motivations and stuff.
>ITT (You) have now been red-flagged
>All players ITT please move calmly to the door in an organized fashion
>Thank you for your time, you may leave now
>Please note that your comments here have been archived permanently in your records accordingly; this may affect future invitations to gaming groups
>>47274037
>appear to be female
I appreciate your careful wording there, that's actually guy.
>>47280806
>>47281501
>Trapped in a video game
I've never heard of this before. Is this something people actually do? For what purpose?
>>47282500
Ignore him. Half this thread is "My bad experience on roll20 are universal objective truths: the post"
>>47280592
>the anon you replied to claimed that having rules is bad
Nice strawman you've got there.
>>47282356
Pairs well with apepper weapons.
Sandbox. It's not bad to have plot, direction, or actual depth to a world with things to do. The Railroad boogeyman isn't real.
>>47274037
>>47274824
you sound like a bad player who got butthurt after being called on your shit
>>47274355
I'm pretty sure it doesn't even make top 3.
>>47274083
done in 1
Sandbox doesn't preclude plot, direction or depth you idiots.
BAD sandbox might, but BAD anything will make for a poor gaming experience.
>BADly designed dungeons
>BAD character options
>BAD politics
>BAD railroading
>BAD system choice
>BAD combat
>BAD encounter balance
>BAD magic system
>BAD genre emulation
>BAD PLAYERS
>>47276402
They absolutely would have. Gygax is the Steve Jobs of rpgs. He's less innovator, more glory hog
>>47284156
>It's not bad to have plot, direction, or actual depth to a world with things to do
>>47275732
>trying to glorify the game as anything more than that is a literal slap in the face of Gygax's memory
>>47282103
You over played your hand man. Clear signs of emulating SJW memespeak to get bait replies.
>innocent animals
>problematic
>shithead/shitlord
>underpriveleged
>Social equity and justice
>>47278965
He might not have been a bad person, but he was a shit GM, and too many of his really bad ideas have lingered until today. Besides, I think were it not for his legacy (which I feel is mostly unearned. If not him, then one of his contemporaries would have created ttrpgs) I think even the most crusted grognard would see him for what he was: a well meaning but flawed man, with some very particular and not necessarily good ideas about how the world works and how games should be played.
>>47284750
How can a sandbox be good? If it has plot it isn't a sandbox. If it has pre-made potential story lines it's not a sandbox. If it has pre-made interactions with NOCs it's not a sandbox.
>>47285313
>wahwahwah
>he had flaws
>therefore he's shit
Maybe you'll have something meaningful to contribute when YOU design a game paradigm that transforms millions of lives instead of bitching about someone who actually made their mark on the world unlike your feeble comment typed from the relaxing shade of mommy's basement.
>>47285358
Wow, you're projecting. And like I said, he's not exactly a revolutionary. Other people around the same time more or less independently came up with the idea for ttrpgs. We'd still have the medium, just with different trappings. If anything, Gygax's main innovation is the bog standard Tolkien derivative settings that clutter up fantasy as a whole. And I'm not the guy who said he was shit. I'm just saying he's not exactly a great icon or role model. He had good ideas, he had bad ideas, and considering his staunch religious beliefs, I doubt he'd be comfortable being idolized the way you seem to be. Now please, stop throwing around ad hominems, put on your big boy pants, and try to argue like an adult
>>47285339
>If it has plot it isn't a sandbox.
Wrong.
>If it has pre-made potential story lines it's not a sandbox.
Wrong.
>If it has pre-made interactions with NOCs it's not a sandbox.
Also wrong, presuming you meant 'NPCs'. Though pre-made interactions with NPC's in a sandbox world should be limited to NPC's of very particular importance.
>>47285339
I would post an image depicting how uneducated and narrow-minded you are, but the internet doesn't seem to have an image appropriate to such depth of incompetence and ignorance.
>>47285569
>>47285527
What IS a sandbox besides complete freedom from any pre constructed thought or action?
Today I learned:
>The shitty philosophically intense framing between the "sandbox" and "narrative" factions have ruined an entire generation of gamers who now have the genuinely held belief that if it's a "sandbox" there must therefore be zero plot or setting or worldbuilding and that if it's "narrative" it's therefore a predetermined wankfest with no combat
>>47285695
welcome to the true secret of traditional gaming:
Everything is ruined by those assholes who say those other assholes aren't having fun right.
>>47280436
This thread: the post.
>>47285313
This. Gygax wasn't horrible, and for his time he was bringing out some revolutionary thoughts, but he was sort of the Freud of RPGs - he was coming to the table with some flawed ideas, and was stubborn enough to refuse to change his own. And then someone like Jung comes along and does ten times better. It's not even that Freud was an idiot, he just was looking at only people with mental problems and applying that to people sane and insane. If he had actually had the right information from working with a less narrow group, he could've made much better theories.
>>47285695
There's another way - rollplay where everything is combat and both narrative bloat and randumbness of freedom are kept to bare minimum.
>>47285695
No one knows exactly what they want, but they sure as hell know what they don't want.
I would try to look at it optimistically - everyone knows what a bad narrative or sandbox game would be like, but it's harder to frame a good one. It'd just be easier if people dropped the terms.
>>47282103
nobody thinks your le social justice boogeyman
try again
>>47285695
If it makes you feel any better, most people here don't play RPGs. This is what happens when everything you know about RPGs comes from listening to other people's bad experiences on Roll20
>>47274037
"Anime Inspired"
>ITT a bunch of whiny entitled players
>>47287080
>>47285695
I think there's a legitimate reason those terms scare people: They should be unnecessary. Nearly every RPG has some form of narrative, even if it's only a very loose one that emerges over time, and even very tightly focused RPGs give you far more freedom than the vast majority of "sandbox" video games. Anyone who feels the need to label their campaign as such is singling themselves out as an extreme example, which isn't generally a good thing. Just like how there's nothing wrong with wanting a campaign to be bleak and pessimistic, but if the GM specifically says their 40kRPG game is going to be "dark" you can rest assured someone (or, more likely, something) is going to try the rape the SoB by the end of the first session.
>>47287493
Isn't that like going into an /a/ thread and posting ">ITT: Weebs?"
It's a Homebrew based on X franchise
>>47274037
>I'm running a game, anon
Biggest red flag for GMs there has ever been. If a GM tells you they're running a game (any game, every game), just run in the opposite direction before you're triggered or offended or notice someone having badwrongfun.
It's the only way to keep your precious feels unmolested.
>>47287746
I think it might be the fact that a lot of people who get into RPGs nowadays are coming from videogames, so even as they adapt to how the tabletop works, they have a different mindset on how to frame things.
>>47287953
>the 'sandbox v. narrative' fags are the same people participating in console wars, console v. PC, and FPS v. RPG faggotry
>/v/ was a mistake
>>47274037
"I browse /tg/"
>>47288132
I wish I could disagree, but this. The kind of people that actually bring up browsing 4chan either are hoping to use it as a crutch to prove their worth, or that they'll be part of a special secret club. It's not that being a fa/tg/uy is bad, it's just that it's assumed that it gives you common ground when you're more than likely to browse different generals and disagree on shared issues. And then people start bringing up the other boards they browse, and that's when I really try to change the topic.
>>47282103
I'm going to piggyback off of this bait to ask people a question: Where's that one illustration of a Jewblin fantasy ATM?
>>47287039
>>47274083
>friend decides to run a Rogue Trader game
>has run good games before and is generally a good GM
>"It's going to be sandbox, but it'll all center around a civil war between Imperial factions."
>sounds kinda promising
>lets one of the players be an Ork
>another player decides to be a Tau
>the only dude who's willing to play the Rogue Trader doesn't know shit about 40K lore
>GM throws in a GMPC
>it's a character they've already played several time, but this time as a Tech Priest
>not a huge deal
>immediately after the introduction it becomes evident the GM had no real plans
>GM says "It's supposed to be sandbox, just tell me what you want to do."
>literally none of the characters have any real ambitions or motivations and the GM doesn't do much to create them or to even give us situations that might inspire a bit of ambition or planning
>ends up feeling like he just wants one of us to run the game for him
>the Rogue Trader quits because no sense of direction being given at all when they don't even know a lot of the basic setting rules and genuinely needed guidance
>GM tries to get somebody else on board
>said person starts sperging out because they don't want to take the old Trader's ship, nor do they want said Trader's crew to keep or make any money from the old ship
>basically just wants to retcon everything and start from the beginning
>argument goes on for a week over this
>finally gets somebody on board to be the Rogue Trader and effectively run the game for him
>just stops running the game and lets it die
Sandbox is now a massive red flag to me, because it comes across as the GM telling you to do his job for him.
>>47288503
>immediately after the introduction it becomes evident the GM had no real plans
This
THISSSS
If you want real poison to a game, it's when the GM expects players to take a game with zero context and turn it into a game for him.
"Sandbox" games have a serious problem where the GM will basically expect the players to independently dig around in a game where all they're told is the equivalent of "You're in a field, wat do."
That's just not how it works. If you can't make a strong kickoff session where you introduce players to a setting, they're not going to have anything to attach themselves to, and most players are not comfortable with essentially writing the game for the GM.
I'm in a similar situation myself, and it's awfully uncomfortable.
http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-playing-in-the-sandbox/
Brings up a lot of the common problems that crop up when people say their game is a "sandbox" game
>>47288805
What about a setting where the players are introduced to an area, told some small bits of things going on currently and then left to their own devices? Things will still occur if the players decide not to intervene, or if they do they alter the outcome. It leaves them free to 360 moonwalk the other direction if they want, but they would still hear rumors of things that happened because they didn't stop it.
>>47288975
>how about a setting where...
You mean like every single sane, non-ideologically driven game of [insert favorite RPG here] to have ever been run?
Your response is why this factionalism is fucking retarded; every game is going to have elements of sandboxy and narrative material or it's going to devolve quickly due to boredom, either from not having any sense of motivation, or through not wanting to have the game just be the DM telling you a long story for a few hours per week.
The factionalism is so fucking bad it seems that positing someone run a normal, regular, run of the mill game of D&D is viewed as a revolutionary postulate.
Goddamn I wonder why I even bother with this hobby anymore some days.
>>47274087
>Homebrew allowed.
Allow me to counter with: "Strictly by the book." Not only will there be no way to address the problems of the system as it applies to your campaign (no system is perfect, and few systems are tailored to the exact approach you and your group take to the game), but it will inevitably lead to the players arguing with the GM over their interpretation of things, rules-lawyering them into being nothing more than a referee in a glorified war game. And fuck that shit.
>>47289054
The hobby's fine, you're just posting on a messageboard that actively goes out of its way to collate and fabricate the absolute worst examples.
>>47289054
I always start a sandbox off with "you guys are all on this quest" in media res. They tell me what their motivations are for the quest and I leave it open ended. Usually they fuck off to wander the sandbox and "make their own quests" but having an intro adventure helps ease players into it and give them somewhat of a reason to stick together.
>>47288805
Ah that brings me back
>First session
>We're given mission to do something in the city for the good of a city
>Kill the bad guys or whatever
>DM says we get fired because we broke a manhole or a sewer grate or something
>We say "OK"
>Suddenly there's nothing for us to do
>He gets really mad at us, as if we had fucked up his campaign
>I'm like "I'm really sorry man but it's not our responsibility to come up with our own hooks and encounters"
>He angrily counters "YES IT IS" without missing a beat
>ok
He was a reasonably intelligent guy who actually prepared campaigns pretty thoroughly, he just had a weird hangup with how he regarded his parties. He was like competitive and abusive.
>>47274083
Game can be sandbox in the sense that a video game is sandbox:
A number of prepared options for the players and encounters triggered by going certain places or doing certain things. Then fill in the cracks with improvisation. All DM's should be able to improvise anyways.
meanwhile, over in shadowrun, all I have to do is make the job and the security system and the players do literally all the rest, including writing their own supporting NPCs.
>>47289195
The best way I've found to run a sandbox is to use random tables to constantly bombard the players with plot hooks, side quests and random encounters.
You only have to design the initial encounter and if you throw enough at the player, they're essentially forced into choosing and turning down plot hooks, finding their own stuff to do.
>>47274037
>appear to be female
soooooo
that's a trap=?
>>47289448
Of course it is, who doesn't recognize him?
>>47282103
>>fine with enabling problematic gamers
This is the part that gave your bait away
>>47274511
They're saying that the thread's premise is flawed. Keep up, doggie.
>>47274698
You're an idiot.
>>47289297
Shadowrun, at least in my limited experience, is a bit more of a hands off game. The player characters, by definition, want to go out and run and do jobs. They're going to actively be looking for listings and visiting bars and looking for rumors of potential goodies, and it also helps that the world is more or less like ours, so there's not much that forces them to shrug confusedly like the Elven Empire of Alsrandem's diplomat visiting in the Dwarven Clan-Homes.
Something that frustrates me about most other genres is that players will often bring a character to the table that is so specific on their goals that they don't want to follow plot hooks, or so general that they don't have any strong urge to follow plot hooks. But you can't fix this without reinventing what people think of as a fantasy game or a post-apoc game or whatever.
>>47289660
just make characters as a group you donk
![[Farting and Screaming].gif](https://i.imgur.com/G0nILQF.gif "[Farting and Screaming].gif")
>>47274709
>>47274193
>>47275632
>>47275751
>>47278054
What is a hexcrawl, exactly?
>>47289688
>>47289660
also, a problem I notice:
Lots of people shit on characters with simple motivations like greed, and then wonder why nobody wants to do anything.
It's the simple motivations that build up to the bigger ones.
>>47274037
Red flags are for lazy, poorly socialized people with no worthwhile friends.
>>47290122
Bullshit, having a list of rules you use to govern what you will and will not find acceptable is the hallmark of an adult with discerning taste.
Not putting up with your shitty "pick your own ending" novel or your uneducated middle class perception of how politics works does not make me lazy, poorly socialized, or devoid of friendship.
>>47290174
I can't decide which is worse.
That genuine discussion has devolved to the point where "making shit up" is considered an effective tactic.
Or that trolling has devolved to the point where "making shit up" is considered an effective tactic.
Well for the latter it'd be more like "People's ability to not get baited has devolved etc." but that didn't really fit the parallelism as well.
Anyways, 2/B8 at least I responded but in a frustrated, meta sort of way.
>>47290174
If you have a worthwhile circle of friends, advanced(?) social skills, and a willingness and ability to apply yourself, you don't need "red flag" logic.
>>47290274
>You don't need standards as long as you have [positive qualities]
(You)
>>47290312
Red flags aren't standards. They're time savers for people too lazy/unconnected/skilled to make a proper assessment and who don't care about false positives, like looking at a black guy and saying "he's probably a violent thief, I'll walk on the other side of the road".
I mean, that's literally what "red flag" refers to: not the bad thing itself, but the extraneous thing that you find is often connected to the bad thing.
>>47290451
>mfw social justice cucks try to make me integrate and interface with objectively inferior cultures and genetic lines
>>47290451
Pattern recognition is basic human skill.
>>47290553
So basic that our brains are really quick to look for patterns where they don't exist or mean anything. It's a genuinely fascinating phenomenon.
>>47290516
Here's a less triggering example for you, then.
Avoiding red flags is like not buying a certain brand of phone based on having heard that a lot of those phones in that brand have been sub-par in the past.
If you were more knowledgeable on the subject, you could have looked at the phones actual abilities and assessed if it was worth buying or not. If you were well-connected, you could just get someone who knows recommend the best phone in your price and needs range. And if you weren't so lazy, you wouldn't have defaulted to relying on a hazy cause-effect relationship to make your decisions for you.
>>47290451
>ike looking at a black guy and saying "he's probably a violent thief, I'll walk on the other side of the road".
But this is true though. Around blacks, don't relax.
t. Black guy from Baltimore.
The only people who will disagree with me are white cucks who are defending a culture they don't even understand.
>>47290634
Here's the problem with your "clever" little metaphor: There's no 'free market' of DMs clamoring for my play time. You scenario is predicated on market standards and brand stability, as where any given TTRPG game is going to be a crap-shoot in terms of trajectory and quality.
So yes, when I see a game that lists aspects that have been a huge problem in the past, I'm going to ignore it, because I don't have a steady feedback cycle for all gamers in a region and definitely don't have a team of individuals who have made it their mission to become intimate enough with local options to hand hold me through the process.
So, just like when a job application from a negro comes across my desk and I don't have PI team to give me in-depth analysis, I filter out things that have reliably been garbage where it belongs; in the trash.
Because in real life, if we looked at every iota of information before making a decision, we'd never get anywhere.
>>47290553
But das is racist!
>>47289869
I just hate it when so many characters start with just a gimmick. Like "I'm going to be this silly idea!" and then they don't really have a reason to want to do much else.
I'm not asking for characters to be totally serious, but come on. You need to have your character want to do more than play silly songs all day and make jokes.
>>47290742
>There's no 'free market' of DMs clamoring for my play time.
How does it feel to be a shitty player with no friends?
>>47290742
All of the things I said translate perfectly to a red flag scenario involving games:
- if you had a worthwhile circle of friends, a good game with X wouldn't be a problem and you wouldn't need to worry about red flags anyway
- if you had the social skills, you could either make a game work once you were in it or verify actual problems early and leave with negligible investment
- if you weren't so goddamned lazy, the above two wouldn't seem so onerous for you
So pretty much yeah, you don't have to resort to red flag methodology if you have the right positive traits. Your personal quality dictates the kinds of strategies you need to use in the world to get the best outcomes.
It's kind of how everything in the world works.
>>47290810
How does it feel to have no coherent response to my refutation and having your only recourse be baseless accusations?
It'd be nice if you leftists learned how to argue in some logical capacity.
![stefavatar[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1vvTWe3.jpg "stefavatar[1].jpg")
>>47290810
>>47290841
>You have standards so you are personally deficient
Riveting argument, chaps.
>>47290596
But the patterns do exist. If you are gonna bitch because outliers exist, fine, just don't go into this faux intellectual bullshit you are tipping your toe in
>>47290742
> You scenario is predicated on market standards and brand stability
It really isn't though. As far as I can tell from reading it, being knowledgeable about phones is useful for identifying a good phone ESPECIALLY if there is a wide quality variance between phones.
You seem to know some buzzwords, but aren't using them properly.
>>47290841
>verify actual problems early and leave with negligible investment
But that is literally what he is doing by having red flags. He verifies common issues he has encountered, and "leaves" (opts to not pursue joining the game) with negligible investment, which is to say his time spent evaluating the game.
Why are you trying to argue this when you yourself agree with his methodology?
>>47274293
everyone is john is the best system ever
>>47290872
See >>47290451.
Standards are important, when they address to the actual thing you want to control for and when it's a problem in the first place.
>>47290932
not while Maid RPG exists
>>47290451
>like looking at a black guy and saying "he's probably a violent thief, I'll walk on the other side of the road".
Statistically speaking, he probably is, at least compared to other races.
You can be mad and triggered if you want, but facts are facts. The "cab drivers won't pick up blacks" meme didn't pop out of a vacuum, m8.
Biggest red flag for me will always be the conduct of my fellow players and the GM.
Theoretically, a good group could play any game, even a terrible one and have an good time. But the best game in the world can't solve bad players or a shit tier DM. Though, I'm never entirely sure what makes a good group.
>>47290907
He doesn't verify the issue, he verifies the "red flag" for the issue. You're not reading the posts carefully, I think.
As for why, red flag logic is pretty much the guilt by association fallacy, and is only useful when, again, you lack both an automatic good group in the shape of a reliable circle of friends and the ability to easily check for the ACTUAL thing you want to avoid (and not something you have associated with that thing as an early warning system).
So yeah. If you're lazy, don't have a good group of friends, and don't have the social skills, red flagging might be the best option for you. It will also, incidentally, keep you away from people of quality who don't suffer from these problems, which is probably to their benefit.
>>47290907
It is within the millennial character to argue against their own literal intention. It's the only thing that can explain the rise of cognitive dissonance as displayed by SJW ideologies.
>>47290996
You're the one projecting emotion onto the example, not me. If you were able to assess directly if a person was a danger to you, or if you were beyond being harmed by another person - that would be MUCH preferable, wouldn't it?
>>47274037
Not really. Easy way to deal with it, though: Just make a barbarian and give yourself an in to being king/queen in your backstory.
>>47291044
A lot of leaps of logic and assumptions there. As if you waving a red flag for you
>>47291044
So, anon, tell me more about how my friends know what I want to avoid better than I do. Because last I checked I seemed pretty reliable for knowing what I do and don't want to deal with.
>>47290996
^This is exactly why I don't want blacks anywhere near my hobbies, my home, or my place of work. "Oh, but anon, Mandingo Raeqwaen Jacksyn doesn't have a criminal record!" Oh yeah, well statistically speaking your "friend" there is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in a fit of racially motivated violence.
>>47291044
>He doesn't verify the issue
Sure he does. "'Sandbox' games usually suck" is an issue. By noting that a game self-described as a "sandbox" game is being marketed as exactly that, he has in fact verified is an issue that exists within the prospective game.
Now, the crux of your bleating and whining seems to be that you think he's "lazy" and deficient because you think he should give every prospective game a much more thorough look-over before deciding it's no longer worthy of interest.
Why, though? Why exactly should he devote any more mental energy when he has clearly established a pattern that has, historically in his experience, provided unsatisfactory results?
There are exceptions, but nobody goes combing over the grass to find gold. Chances are all that's there are worms.
And that's enough for most.
>>47291126
>leaps of logic and assumption
Point some out, and we'll go over them. Remember that conditionals aren't assumptions, just part of the statement.
>>47291144
>So, anon, tell me more about how my friends know what I want to avoid better than I do.
That would be covered by "decent circle of friends" and "social skills" bit.
>>47291097
Preference is irrelevant to what something is. I don't know where you keep on making these connections from.
Stop with metaphors. You suck with them
>>47291044
> guilt by association fallacy
stopped reading there.
you don't need to fit everything into archetypes for anything to make sense. arguments aren't D&D
>>47274037
"Anthro" campaign
Basically, furry campaign
>>47291189
>who needs to know about logical fallacies?
>my cognition is perfect as it is!
>>47291174
The fact that you keep on referencing work ethic as having a relation to observational skill for one of many
>>47291165
He wants to avoid "suck", but he's avoiding "Sandbox". He's not verifying the issue.
>>47291176
But preference is exactly what the example is dealing with. In order to need a sub-optimal (not preferred) solution to a problem, you need to be a) subject to the problem in the first place and b) lack access to the optimal solution.
You should probably read what you are trying to rebut more carefully.
>>47291223
I'm not. Work ethic is separate to observational skill, but very related to bothering to observe the right thing in the first place.
>>47274037
Yeah, "My campaign is highly inclusive and cherishes diversity."
Meaning: "Hope you like playing a lesbian transgender woman of color, shitlord!"
>>47291240
>He wants to avoid "suck", but he's avoiding "Sandbox". He's not verifying the issue.
>"Most games that describe themselves as sandbox suck"
Issue verified.
>>47291223
What's funnier is he's calling a guy with a masters degree "lazy" and implying a lack of social connections.
>>47291240
If you had the mental capacity to follow along, you'd understand I'm arguing against narrative bullshit and intrigue.
>>47274860
ITT: Butt-chapped homebrew political intrigue sandbox DM
>>47291165
lol the actual crux, if you bothered to go back and read, is that well-connected, socially skilled, diligent people simply don't have to worry about screening shortcuts when looking for people to have a great game with.
They're connected, so they have a great group already. They're socially skilled, so identifying the actual problem instead of an imperfect indicator is easy.
What's so hard to understand?
>>47291262
>most X are Y
>want to avoid Y, so avoid all X
You seriously don't see how this is a foolish waste if you can just identify Y directly? Come on, man.
>>47291264
Plenty of people with degrees are lazy; it's a relative term anyway. You seem to be struggling with the concept of discussing something in an anonymous environment, so I won't push it.
>>47291240
It's hard to read when you keep on making leaps and also just shallow ass arguments.
>Good group equals good game.
No fucking shit sherlock. Still doesn't do anything for detecting bad games which this entire red flag thread is about.
>>47291312
>lmao if u just had a bunch of friends who were all awesome and also into p&p games ud have no trubl finding a good gaem but u dont cuz ur lazy dumb and nobody likes u LMAO
Why are you even posting?
Honest question. We're discussing evaluating games in the context of an internet p&p gaming board seeing and joining games posted on the internet. You have described circumstance that is utterly beyond this scope.
Yes, if you had a unicorn, it would not be necessary to discuss what a unicorn looks like. You'd know what it looks like because you have one.
Most people don't have one.
You're not even interested in the premise of the discussion, you're just name calling out of some neurotic need to get (You)s.
>>47291349
>most X are Y
>Want to avoid Y, so avoid a common source of Y
I can't believe I had to make this connection for you.
>>47291349
You are the kind of fucker that tells people to stop listening if it's too loud aren't you? What's the point of observing if the goal is not to observe in the first place?
>>47291373
I've never seen anyone at the master level behave in a lazy manner, not when grades are twice as strict as undergrad, my friend.
Also, I really don't have an issue discussing things in an anonymous format but if you're done embarrassing yourself, please feel free to take some time collecting yourself.
>>47291375
^This. My issue isn't "suck", it's "narrative" and I guess not liking something that I just don't like means I'm lazy and have no friends or social skills. I mean, it's way easier to assume that that argue in good faith or anything.
>>47291373
>Plenty of people with degrees are lazy;
That's true, but personally, I'd call it utilitarian hedonism.. of sorts. You spend couple years getting the degree then the rest of your live on easy job with short shifts that pays well just because you have the degree. It's being smart about being lazy.
Unless you mean burnouts that lose all drive shortly after getting the degree, that's just failure.
>>47291407
>I can't believe I had to make this connection for you.
Indirect verification is inferior to direct verification, where possible. You know this, so I'm just going to assume you're being a jerk now.
>>47291408
You can observe shit without stepping in it, dummy.
>>47291445
>where possible
Key words.
Nobody can divine the true nature of man nor game with but a glance, so we notice patterns, and rely on generalities, because generalities are the rule, not the exception.
>>47291445
Whoa now you should not use his stance against you as a... red flag for his character.
>>47291488
>>47291445
So are you then positing that I accept and play in at least one session of every single game that crosses my path? Because that seems like way more work than anybody puts into vetting games. They look at an ad, decide if they wanna play, and that's that.
Are you actually arguing that I waste MORE of my time playing in games I already know I'm not going to enjoy? All to meet YOUR standards of verification rather than mine? My time's too valuable to me to bend to your metric of analysis.
>>47291480
Yes, but there is a spectrum of coarse and fine identification methods and -
You know what, I can tell you guys are having way too much fun right now, and it's good natured enough so that's cool. But I'm not really interested in being target practice over something relatively minor.
Take it easy, guys!
>>47291535
>got BTFO
>scurries away with tail tucked between "his" legs
Try not to have many panic attacks while you flee.
>>47291407
>people who are not lazy, socially retarded, and friendless
>utterly beyond this scope
Give us some credit, I mean I know we're /tg/ but come on. Not all of us have these probs.
>>47289791
It's a more open-ended game built on a global map, traditionally comprised of hexes (hence the name).
It may have a central mystery or conflict for the PCs to resolve, but little direction from point A to point B.
It seems super fun, and I'm currently planning on running one.
>>47291535
>Yes, but there is a spectrum of coarse and fine identification methods
At the cost of increasing amounts of time.
Why is something or someone worth more time? You can always argue you just "didn't give it enough of a chance." You can always spend more time to use a "finer" identification method.
But it's usually not worth it, because most books have the content indicated by their cover, and similarly, so do most people, games, and indeed things in general have content corresponding to the identity they themselves choose to portray.
There is in fact a point of rapidly diminishing returns here. You do not need to place your head in the lion's mouth to verify that this particular lion is going to kill you.
>>47291675
How is this different from a "true" sandbox?
>>47291615
I'm not even saying that. But by definition, anyone who had the perfect group would not be looking for a game, and therefore would not be privy to the qualities one looks for in a good one.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that just because you have friends doesn't mean they'd be good players, or that they'd even be interested in the hobby to begin with, and further ignoring that the inherent imperfections of communication and social interaction doesn't even necessarily mean it'd be the perfect group to begin with.
So it's just utterly pointless to bring up and stems from some foolish need to insult the people arguing with you. You're literally going into a unicorn discussion thread and laughing at people who don't have unicorns.
>>47274083
I dunno, am currently in a sandbox hexcrawl campaign and it's the best game I've ever been a part of. You just need a spectacular GM.
> start sandbox campaign
> have a setting absolutely teeming with npcs, monsters, plot hooks, events
> players do their very best to ignore or disengage from everything
> "there's nothing to dooooooo"
fuckers
>>47291698
>people, games, and indeed things in general have content corresponding to the identity they themselves choose to portray.
Hence why I refuse to game with:
>minorities
>women
>the poor
>uneducated people
>those living with mommy or daddy
>people with family issues
>people with mental health problems
>people obsessed with popular media
>weed/drug addicts
>fat fuck sacks of jelly or those who otherwise can't control their diet
>SJWs
>religious people
>millennials
>queers
And any other undesirable elements of society; they identify themselves just fine and you can tell TONS about a person by the company they keep.
