Musings on Sci Fi Campaigns/Adventures

[Tonguez]

I did a game where the PCs were law enforcement on the outer fringe planets and moons 'the Wild frontier'. It was far enough from civilized space that the PCs had their own autonomy and responded to missions as they chose including fighting pirates and raiders, doing rescue and recovery, escort missions, outreach to remote asteroid mines, colony diplomacy, or investigating mysterious beacons or abandoned ships (ie space dungeons).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm a huge fan of the "Sandbox" option: it puts the players in control, which should be the default position of all ttrpgs IME. Otherwise, it's the GM telling the players what to and how to do it - how is that fun?

By this standard, quest based fantasy isn't "fun", which seems a pretty broad claim for something that probably takes up much of the hobby.

I think the idea that only sandboxes are true RPGs is not thought through, and at best shows a narrowness of view.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Some players actually prefer strong GM direction. They dont do well with ambiguity and the vast opportunities in front of them which then the game stalls out. To be fair, some GMs are really poor at presenting sandboxes too. Paizo's Starfinder adventure paths are like the PF ones which come in both linear and non-linear variety. Some players like engaging a particular story and following through while the GM presents interesting exploration, social, and combat encounters along the way.

One thing I agree with, the players ought to have agency with their characters and how they choose to engage the game in any format.

I don't disagree with the latter part; I just think the idea only sandboxes have that is pretty odd.

 

[GMMichael]

Just do what Starfield did: make most planets boring. Then the PCs will want to go to the interesting locations you've set up.

Or you might have the PCs' terrestrial scanner report a very common finding: Hostile Environment. Do Not Enter.

 

[dragoner]

Alien ruins are like sticky paper for pc's, and all like going from station to station, kind of like Cherryh's Alliance-Union, "That's affirmative, dock at berth TVC15." Then they are off getting into trouble at the local dive. Startown Liberty is the classic supplement.

 

[Theory of Games]

Some players actually prefer strong GM direction. They dont do well with ambiguity and the vast opportunities in front of them which then the game stalls out.

Oh I know those types of players and while I don't hate them - I strongly dislike them. More than a few of them I've run back to their video & board games. TTRPGs are for creative people.

To be fair, some GMs are really poor at presenting sandboxes too.

See. This is where we could fall into the "What's a Sandbox, Anyway?" thing. I'd argue that the great majority of published adventures are sandboxes and most GMs can run them. "Your crew is in galaxy X. Here's a link to all the planets & things to do on them. Here's another link with galactic factions and how they could help/hurt your crew. What do you guys want to do?" It's THAT simple (if you want it to be).

Paizo's Starfinder adventure paths are like the PF ones which come in both linear and non-linear variety. Some players like engaging a particular story and following through while the GM presents interesting exploration, social, and combat encounters along the way.

But ... whether the players are saying "let's do X" or the GM says "your crew does X", the GM is always presenting. Always. The difference is (as most of you define them) "Sandboxes" allow the players to pick their destinations instead of the GM. And again, IMO players who prefer to sit back and let the GM tell them what to do really should just play video games. It irks me that someone could be so devoid of imagination that they surrender their decision-making to another.

One thing I agree with, the players ought to have agency with their characters and how they choose to engage the game in any format.

100%. The GM's role is to present choices and dilemmas for the players to decide. That only.

By this standard, quest based fantasy isn't "fun", which seems a pretty broad claim for something that probably takes up much of the hobby.

I didn't mention "quest-based fantasy". You did - and player characters can 'quests' within the matrix of a sandbox. And yeah, sandbox-based quests probably do comprise most of what ttrpg groups do.

I think the idea that only sandboxes are true RPGs is not thought through, and at best shows a narrowness of view.

Well, as usual, I'm not quoting from a science book or holy writ. These are just my opinions and I'd argue that 99.9% of ttrpg adventures fit within the parameters of a "Sandbox"

What is Sandbox play?

How would you describe the concept of sandbox play? How about to someone who is used to adventure modules or adventure paths?

rpg.stackexchange.com

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't mention "quest-based fantasy". You did - and player characters can 'quests' within the matrix of a sandbox. And yeah, sandbox-based quests probably do comprise most of what ttrpg groups do.

I said "quest based" for a reason. Those are not sandboxes. They're games where the campaign has a purpose, and things that need to be done to get to those purposes. There might be opportunities for side trips, but they're not sandboxes. The PCs aren't doing whatever they feel like. And I have every evidence that's what a large amount, probably the majority of fantasy games do to one degree or another.

Well, as usual, I'm not quoting from a science book or holy writ. These are just my opinions and I'd argue that 99.9% of ttrpg adventures fit within the parameters of a "Sandbox"

Bluntly, that's ridiculous, and that's even if you're your just talking heroic fantasy. Once you get out of it, that's nonsensical.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Before anyone reports anyone, please, let’s dial back the rhetorical tone a bit.

 

[aramis erak]

So I've recently been perusing some Traveller/2300AD rules, and watching Stars Without Number playthroughs with the eye towards eventually setting up a SciFi campaign involving characters with/assigned to a starship of some kind (merchant/military/exploratory). I don't know why, but SciFi seems so much harder to set up an 'open campaign setting' for me compared to Fantasy. At a superficial level, Traveller sectors appear to give you everything for a Hexcrawl which is something I can easily grok in a fantasy setting. But in a Hexcrawl, each hex is pretty simple, even the ones with stuff in them to explore. In a SciFi setting, each system feels daunting to characterize 'on the fly'.

So, there are a few campaigns I can think of to get around some of my issues (which I feel like I haven't explained well).

Traveller has a number of tools for different campaign styles... I'm talking CT, but MGT1 has similar tools. (I don't know, nor care much about, MGT2).

The core rules for CT provide for several kinds of campaign.

• The Space Merchant: buying and selling, using the T&C system in Bk 2. If you want this to be dominant, you must interpret "A trader" from within "A trader with cargo space available and free capital with which to speculate may seek out suitable goods to buy and sell." as an individual, not a ship, as purchased cargo by the rule is one lot per trader per week. Note that most consider it per ship... others hybridize with Bk7 Merchant Prince, or just use MP itself.
• The Space Trucker: default mode - most of the hold is filled with other people's stuff, and you're just the carrier. This provides a very thin, but doable, margin for operations and property.
• The Mercenary: You're hired guns in a war... someone else's war, at that. Better done with Bk 4 weapons, even if you stick to Bk 1 characters.
• The Agent: You work for some multi-letter acronym or some noble. You do nail missions for them. (this one's read between the lines in CT, essentially a series of patron missions, but always for the same patron) While patrons are provided in the core, Patron missions aren't. It's just enough to trigger things.
• The Hired ___: patron driven. Find a patron, do their job, find new patron.
• Planetary Explorer: Using the encounter table building rules, turning a single world into a hexcrawl, usually with a map from orbit. (See Mission on Mithril or Marooned for example planetary hexcrawls)
• Space Explorer: poorly supported, but it is suggested in the rules.

Extra or expanded for the supplements

• Exploratory Trader: while this is in AM 1 Aslan, and in A1 and A4, it's not really that well supported. But it was and is a mode often used back in the day. DGP's Grand Survey and Grand Census made it work nicely, and detail out worlds.
• Space Explorer: The same as exploratory trader, but different emphasis. Note that GS and GC are almost unobtanium, and if Roger Sanger would play ball, Marc has scans. Note that World Builder's Handbook for MegaTraveller consolidates GS and GC into one volume, updated to MT rules.
• Patron Driven Hired ___: this is massively easier with 76 Patrons. MGT1's 760 patrons is lower quality, slightly, but many many more entries!
• S13 Veterans: provides resources for mercenary games.
• Beltstrike adds mining the asteroids; a less polished system is in JTAS
• Tarsus adds a whole world in pretty decent detail, and some various things to do.

I'll note as well: Space Exploration Campaigns, merchant or not, need some reason why they haven't been explored yet; wormholes, voids which need a particular Jump Drive rating, or collapse of a violent higher tech empire... or you're running a campaign where the world they're based upon just nabbed/invented jump drive.

Nobles as patrons are a suggested trope in the rules... nobles as functionaries are mostly presented in supplements, especially S4: Citizens of the Imperium, with the Noble career. Also S8/11 library data A-M/N-Z. So Landed Nobles having teams doing special stuff, especially stuff needed to be done deniably, is a viable trope, and 76/760 patrons are still useful for what's needed...

 

[Umbran]

I'm a huge fan of the "Sandbox" option: it puts the players in control, which should be the default position of all ttrpgs IME. Otherwise, it's the GM telling the players what to and how to do it - how is that fun?

An actual answer to that would be a massive detraction from the topic of the thread, so I won't go into depth.

Suffice to say - you overstate what happens in other people's games.