Quote:
Originally Posted by el-remmen  However, this openness has led to a kind of inertia in my current game that I have been trying to overcome and feel like I am failing. Basically, the players (both in and out of character) debate and argue about almost every single decision they have to make. I am not talking a little disagreement. I mean like hours of gaming time full of speculation, recrimination, obstinacy and paranoia. |
I think what you are seeing is a form of option paralysis - the tendency, when given unlimited choices, to make none. It's the "kid in a candy store" problem.
Some folks sing the praises of the sandbox, but the truth is that some, even many, folks do not do well when given too many options, but insufficient information to make a choice clear. Many folks won't choose one option because they "like it" - humans often require that choices be
justified, because in the real world, usually you can find a good reason to take one option over another. A pure sandbox GM doesn't care which way they go, so there is no preferable, justifiable solution. The players and GM then, are working with a fundamental mismatch of expectations - they're being logical, you are not.
The end result is thrashing around, trying to find a
reason to take one over the other - sometimes leading to arguments over minutiae or irrelevancies.
My solution to such a problem is to not use too many options - a hybrid sandbox. Sometimes, I will follow my players' lead, and things look like a sandbox. Sometimes, they will follow mine, and allow themselves to be railroaded for a while.
Most specifically, when it looks like they are starting to thrash, I force the issue. Either I inject information that clearly leads to one path being preferable, or I eliminate options.
And yet another word from our sponsors
