It's not like those are the only two options.

Basically I think the GM needs to be pro-active and provide plotlines, clues, missions and outlines which the players can interact with and fill with their ideas. Just stating, "you can do whatever you want, what do you do?" in my experience hardly ever makes for a good game. I enjoy well prepared, focused sessions with 3 dimensional npc's with detailed back stories, awesome sets where battles take place, layered plots, etc. All of which are extremely hard to make up on the spot, not to mention that is also extremely hard to be consistent and remember what you came up with two or three weeks later when your players suddenly revert to something that happened "that one time."

I enjoy giving players a lot of freedom but I do keep the plot moving along at all times and I am always prepared. Heck, for a 4 hour session I spend perhaps the same time preparing the adventure, sometimes even longer.

But as regards tabletop rpgs, if we're talking sandbox, I'm picturing everyone gathering around the table and the GM saying, 'okay, when we left off last session, you guys were in town XYZ. What do you want to do?'. That sounds ridiculously unfocused to me, and probably baffling for the players.

It's really not unfocused when you play. Usually, if the last session ended clean that's what I do. If we ended in the middle of something, we'll finish up and then it is "you guys just saved the princess. What would you like to do?" and usually the players have had something happen during play that they want to explore. I like that better than me trying to write a novel and have my players act it out.

An extreme comparison!

I think we're alike in spirit, if not in execution. when I was GMing a D6 SW game back in the day, at the end of every episode, I'd ask the players, "what do you want to do next?". They'd say, "we want to go curry favour with crimelord X, to make sure he's still backing us", or "we want to find a way to make it look like Evil Corporation Y is failing in the sector, so that maybe they'll think about pulling out". Armed with this knowledge, I'd go away and write a (malleable) adventure for them.

But you're saying you ask your players what they want to do on the night, and then wing it? That's ballsy (can I say that?). What would you say is your 'entertainment success rate'?

About D&D 4e being "nothing but linear..."

Frankly, that can be said about published adventures for pretty much any system, including this one. That's the inherent drawback to a published adventure, that the GM and the party are generally "on rails" for them to get any use out of it. The better quality published adventures may have suggestions for when the PCs go off on a tangent or even include ways to further flesh out the adventure, but even the best of them are effectively linear plots that require the players to follow a certain structure.

The "set pieces" were something Chris and Dave first discussed during the Saga Edition version of the Order 66 podcast, and they were simply a GM tool for those times when the players went off the rails or the GM didn't have a lot of time to prep for the night's adventure. Not every GM is that good at improvising an adventure on the fly, preferring the comfort of having at least something pre-established to work from.

I would like to add that I played for GM's who thought they could wing it and get away with it and some of them could. These were, however, never the sessions we talked about for the months to follow. I like how spontaneous events can shake up and surprise a gm, don't get me wrong. But, I have come to find that true and absolute freedom usually doesn't make for a better game rather than a longer path to more generic encounters...

I can't see how a natrative game can't also be a sandbox. And, tbh, I don't know how players know if they're following a clever linear adventure or a well run sandbox, anyway. My experience might be limited but I really don't know which the game I'm in happens to be. Our stories progress, we seem to freely choose where we're going and how we might do things. Is the GM subtly making certain choices more obviously good than others? I wouldn't put it passed him. He's sneaky that way...

As I was writing this, I realized a couple of interesting things... To me, anyway. If you need to ask if you're in a sandbox, then you probably arent't. And if you have to ask if you're on a linear adventure path, then it shouldn't matter.

It's the GM's job to make a tight enough story that when (not if), the players derail the story, the GM can change gears and keep the story going. And that derailment, definitely makes the story not linear by any means.

I disagree and frankly I am tired of the seemingly age old idea of the GM being responsible for creating the story, often competing against the stupidity and or stubborness of the players.

If the group wants to play something other than murderhobos, or anything specific at all, it is every player's responsibility - including the GM - to make that happen.

That said system do matter, I think, and the OP's question is perfectly valid, if unfounded.

And that's what I'm saying. If the PCs take the story in a different direction, the GM needs to be able to give the players the action (whether it be combat or not), that the group wants. Derailing a story doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing, some great scenes can happen because the PCs do things the GM doesn't expect. But keeps an eye out for a way to still accomplish the goal of the adventure. Plus, what a player does in game, can lead to other things. Player kills a loan shark. What about the entity (organization or person) that he reports to? If it's a person, what about someone who is loyal to the slain, that person may now want revenge. That's all because the player chose that particular action. That too in a sense can be derailing the story.

Going from A to B to C to D to E is linear. If the PCs go from A to C to B to D to E, that's because of the players and how it has to go. If you want linear, write a book. But the GM needs to know A (the beginning) and know E (the end). And again, the GM needs to be able to switch gears quick enough to be able to keep the entertainment, the point of the game, going. If the GM is there just to say you succeed and fail, what's the point of the GM? We all know the rules well enough to know how to do that without a GM.

As a player, I put in story hooks into my character backgrounds to give the GM something to work with and use in the game. But also as a GM, I look for those hooks to use to create good stories to use in addition to the story I may want to explore.

I'm not saying the OP's observation is wrong, I'm just saying that he's been misinformed.

If you buy the the rulebook ,you have a sandbox. Right? I don't understand how it can be anything else.

About D&D 4e being "nothing but linear..."

Frankly, that can be said about published adventures for pretty much any system, including this one. That's the inherent drawback to a published adventure, that the GM and the party are generally "on rails" for them to get any use out of it. The better quality published adventures may have suggestions for when the PCs go off on a tangent or even include ways to further flesh out the adventure, but even the best of them are effectively linear plots that require the players to follow a certain structure.

The "set pieces" were something Chris and Dave first discussed during the Saga Edition version of the Order 66 podcast, and they were simply a GM tool for those times when the players went off the rails or the GM didn't have a lot of time to prep for the night's adventure. Not every GM is that good at improvising an adventure on the fly, preferring the comfort of having at least something pre-established to work from.

This. 'Set Pieces' are a tool in a GM's tool box. Think of them as the skeleton of an encounter. They exist to aid the GM so that he/she can more quickly adapt to an unexpected detour or tactic during a session.

Not to toot my own horn, but take a look at the Environmental Set Piece document we've been piecing together on over on the Order 66 forums. There's some examples that are more or less fully fleshed out encounters, but they're the exception, rather than the rule. (There's even a set piece that works for a primarily *social* encounter, though if things go *too* wrong, a fight breaks out.)

"Hmm. I didn't expect the party's noble start insulting the local drunks on Unification Day. I know, let me pull out the 'Border Town Cantina' set piece. It has some ideas on how to spend Threat that are appropriate to the situation. If they're good, they may just talk their way out of the fight... Oooh.. Guess not. Good thing there's some basic Thug stats right there, ready to use."

"Ok, the players took that running battle onto a hover-train. What on earth can I do to make this fight unique and interesting? Oh yeah, I have a 'Hover-Train Car (interior)' set piece in my binder with some notes."

They've just been ambushed (or set up an ambush) on a busy city street. I'll go ahead and crib some ideas from the 'Urban Skywalk' set piece."

And, just to forestall the potential objection, you don't always *have* to use a Set Piece as-is (or even *at all*), even if it may be appropriate to the situation. Maybe they've made a habit of getting into bar brawls, in their current locale. So add a security squad to the mix. Or maybe the brawl gets broken up by a panicked herd of Nerfs crashing around (and through) the building.

"They decided to meet their contact in a big manufacturing facility, but he's been followed, and an ambush is being set up. How can I make this fight interesting? I know. I'll use the 'Magnetic Crane mechanic from the 'Junkyard' set piece, re-skin the 'Rock Slide' mechanic from the 'Rocky Mountain Side' set piece, and throw in some security droids from the 'Detention Block Entry Room' set piece."

I am in a group that started of from the beginner game to the EotE adventures that are printed. My GM is good enough to tell we are derailing and he cuts us slack to do it. The dice actually help him and we do as well we suggest bad stuff and good stuff. however at 1 point or another we do realize we took a job or have a price on our heads. We choose sensibly up to now. However I think 1 of our team is derailing as a character.

A printed story has a beginning a middle and an end. The middle is the sandbox in my oppinion. Our group never followed the storry but did meet the requirements to end the story. The GM does have some smart thinking to do but the group of PC's discusses a lot as well so wait for the right moment to send in a key character\group o thugs\ troopers patrol because I think your group will carry the story. Actually the DM in our case is "just" a guide

No worries mate EotE will give you all your RPG needs.

Dutch guy, John?

Edge of the empire is far from linear to begin with, but also that depends solely upon the GM.

Linear and non-linear work hand in hand to bring the adventure to life. All the scenarios i write use both methods to a certain degree.

Example: The characters are at a spaceport in search of a contact in which to gain employment. Stormtroopers are also present on patrol, but are not actively looking for the characters. During the search for this contact, the characters encounter

a group of aqualish thugs who plan to rob the characters. If the characters engage in blaster fire with the thugs, then this will draw attention of the stormtroopers. This will slowly add complexity to the scenario.

1:The base outline is to locate the contact.

2: The aqualish thugs is the actual,planned encounter they face.

3: The stormtroopers can then be used as an additional encounter or a plot piece to add complexity to the search for the contact.

Broken down even further is like this.

1: Searching out the contact is linear.=something that will take place.

2: The aqualish thugs is the planned encounter and is linear.=something that will take place.

3: The inclusion of the stormtroopers as an encounter or a plot piece,giving the characters numerous ways to avoid this situation or combating the troopers followed by allowing full reign as to where in this spaceport the characters will go due to the situation as a whole is non-linear.=something that may take place or may complicate the scenario by allowing full reign to the spaceport.

Sorry if this seems a bit off, but im just trying to point out that something as simple as this outline can merge both linear and non-linear to form a better scenario.

Im actually playing with a group online right now that has taken on the task of creating a persistent world within the eote universe. It is designed to be much more sandbox than linear but there are linear options for whoever so chooses that path.

The Gm's have designed it to cater to whatever each individual player wants to do. They have a very unique way of running sessions and the whole idea is like nothing I've played before but I believe it shows just how creative you can be with the eote system. If you want linear it gives you that option and if you want sandbox, you can do that too. It all depends on how the players and the GM decide to run their sessions.

But in my opinion, running a sandbox style game is much more difficult than linear. There are a lot of things that the GM has to have covered to keep it entertaining.

It would have to be a VERY poor GM not to have some sandboxery in most games. I don't think I've ever ran an adventure as written. My players are very good at coming up with end runs around whatever I've come up with - and often what they do come up with is better than what I had in mind.

Of course some times I'll just come up with a "You need to break into prison and rescue this guy" game, design the hell out of the prison and surroundings, and let my clever little players figure out how they'll pull the heist - be it a brute force shoot 'em up, looking at the shift rotations and getting in on staff, rappelling over from a nearby building or bribing the warden with a beach resort vacation.

I usually need something to hang a story on and player obligation is a great way to change things to react to the players backgrounds and what they want to do to pay-off their obligation. I currently have a number of adventures lined up that will be triggered based on whose obligation is triggered. A couple of the adventures will work for two or more of the Pcs but the entry point to each adventure will be tailored to the individual.

Once the characters are in the adventure then all bets are off to how the players act and what they mess up, but I do have a knack of making it be beneficial to the players to follow the story, such as 'if you deliver this artifact to this Hutt then you will get credits' but it's always up to the players what job they take. (Or so they think......mwahaha.......)

I think it does depend on the GM to how sand-boxy the game is, I recently ran a game as it was written, which isn't usually how I do things. The adventure was very linier in nature and didn't allow much deviation in the players actions. One of my players commented that he realised that a lot of adventures I run must also be like this but I sprinkle on something special so the players never see the rails.

Running a game is like cooking dinner, you start with the same ingredients but you could just as easily end up with scrambled egg and fries or fried egg and hash brown!

My game is completely sandbox.

Lots of different styles, maybe the podcast people just prefer their game that way.

Nothing about EoE is intrinsically linear, in the way (say) 4th Edition D&D was.

In fact, 'Suns of Fortune' seems to be going the other way, with mini-adventures you can slot in anywhere.

WOTCs 4e adventures were painfully linear. I did a conversion of 3E's Death in Freeport to 4E, and easily had a blast. I'm finding Paizo's Pathfinder adventures just as linear as WOTCs with the exception of Kingmaker.

I'd argue that EOTE makes it way easier to sandbox. I'm running Beyond The Rim right now, so far my players haven't done a single thing as expected. The rules just role with it. And the adventure is designed to adapt to what the players do so well, that It reminds me of my 4E conversion of Death In Freeport.