Adventures The Opposite of Rail-roading

[el-remmen]

The recent spate of thread on railroading coincides with a crisis in my own DMing and campaign style that has me seriously reconsidering how I do things because it doesn't seem to be working as well anymore.

I run a very "simulationist" game - in sense that the world is a sand-box and theoretically the PCs can go anywhere and do anything - it is just that some things are more connected to their backgrounds, motivations, loyalties, origins, etc. . . and some things are just beyond their ability to deal with at a particular level (or without the other non-level dependent resources that may be required) - but regardless, if they want to do it, they can try and find a way.

When constructing a campaign, I usually collect a few adventures I'd like to run, knowing that I will have to craft the "glue" of plot that brings them together from the actions of PCs and that sometimes this means just having to drop an adventure altogether because I simply won't be able to make it work, or it involves some aspect of the campaign that the players have shown no interest in.

I also create the motivations and goals for various NPCs and organizations for the PCs to interact with - either as allies or rivals, or sometimes in more complicated morally gray ways. As readers of my story hours and people who have played in my games know, I prefer tough choices in my games.

Also in my games the PCs are only a small part of a much larger world. That is, while they can gain fame and make world-shattering decisions, they have to earn that. There is no "player character entitlement" in my games. Your characters are "just like anyone else" (except in ways they aren't, of course - I just mean there is no immunity to the consequences of their actions just because they are a player character - I have had a PC arrested and just rot in jail when escape on his own was impossible and the rest of the party decided not to bother trying to save him).

I am fine with all that.

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.

Since every decision can potentially make a huge difference in the direction of the game or the likelihood of survival or success, every decision is examined and discussed ad nauseum - even when it doesn't need to be, or they don't have all the info they need to make an informed decision.

Now, I have nothing against character conflict - in fact, in the past I have encouraged it because I think it really helps develop the characters and leads to dramatic scenes and again, the tough choices I love - in the past these conflicts may have sometimes kept things a little frayed, but they never threatened to paralyze the game itself.

Anyone else ever have this problem? There have been points where the arguing has seriously threatened my continuing fun in running the game (again, I am not against a session every once in a while that becomes one long debate about where to travel to and what to do once they get there and series of speculations about foes, etc. . . but in this case they are coming every other session or so). I have brought it up to the players out of game and we have tried a few solutions that so far have had little effect.

One of them was to take these discussion to messageboards/email between sessions whenever possible. The problem with this was that not everyone has equal time (or desire) to access the boards between sessions and whatever was discussed ended up rehashed at the table anyway.

Another solution I offered was to find out-of-character solutions to the disagreements and then find a way to make those decisions remain consistent with the characters themselves. This would work, except that a couple of players find that this conflicts with their playstyle - they want all their decisions made from their character's POV first (which normally is my preferred way as well, but it just doesn't always work). Also, one player in particular always seems to backslide into his own obstinacy making everything into an argument and always having to have the last word (there is a lot of slippage between how much of this is the player and how much is the obnoxious character he is playing).

Related to the above solution is to have their characters change in-game - by this I mean, use the excuse of traveling and fighting for their lives together to construct a camaraderie that seems absent in the adventuring group. Again, this is kind of meta, but allows for the future in-character decisions to make sense for the players.

Lastly, I am going to try to take a firmer hand in guiding the direction of the campaign. Limiting choices and using the character loyalties and duties to push them in particular directions more forcefully. I am also going to be less "stingy" with information in hopes of their making better and quicker decisions based on it.

So what do you all think? Suggestions? Commiseration? Questions?

EDIT: By the way, I am well aware, that a lot of the advice I will likely get is to make stuff happen to them and give them timelines to complete things, etc. . . I do this already. One character has been repeatedly attacked by assassins, they've been challenged to duels, had to save the town they were staying in before everyone went insane, etc. . . The thing is deadlines are typically tied to a particular adventure and set of events, I think it is cheesy to repeatedly use that device.

[Wootz]

I think you give them too much open-ness. You should give them a sense of direction. Let's use real life as an example. Yes, in real life you can go around doing anything you damn well please, but if something appeals to you more than something else, it's probably what's going to be on your mind, right? Try making adventures that they would want to go on, then kinda push them a little until they scurry into it. If they decide they don't want to, try something else (since railroading is basically devoiding the characters of choice) but don't be too harsh. Just let them know the obvious, and it should help.

[ExploderWizard]

Indecisive players are worse than ones that always make unwise choices. At least bad decisions lead to actual play. I would announce to the group that a time limit on such decisions will be enforced.

What about XP/ rate of advancement? Does thier lack of doing things have any consequences here?

[Skallgrim]

See if you can get one (just one) player to be an instigator. Whether this involves creating a new PC for him,or just getting him to change up his character a bit, see if you can convince one player to be reckless, impulsive, or overconfident.

Suddenly, every instance of debating either becomes:

Mongo is bored. I charge!

or

Mongo is looking bored. Stop him from charging!

I had one player in my old group who served this function admirably (which is one of the reasons why he's in my new group). I usually didn't have to "send a guy in with a sword", as he was always on the lookout for trouble. This is also much more doable than getting a whole group to change their ways.

[vagabundo]

Carrot and the stick. You've spoiled your players with too many options, it is time to lay down the law, in real life most of us are restricted through social or financial circumstances.

You need to get the balance back in the game and some plot railroading and 'focus' by the player characters is needed.

Dont forget: Your suppose to be having fun too.

I DM exclusively and I forgot that for a couple of years during late 3.5 era. I'm much happier now and my games are banging!!

[el-remmen]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard

What about XP/ rate of advancement? Does thier lack of doing things have any consequences here?

Well, I run a slow advancement game, anyway - but yeah the party has been taking a lot longer to get places I'd imagine they'd be by now.

End of January will be 2 years of play - the party just reached 5th level (after starting at 2nd with 0 xp).

[el-remmen]

Originally Posted by Skallgrim

See if you can get one (just one) player to be an instigator. Whether this involves creating a new PC for him,or just getting him to change up his character a bit, see if you can convince one player to be reckless, impulsive, or overconfident.

Suddenly, every instance of debating either becomes:

Mongo is bored. I charge!

or

Mongo is looking bored. Stop him from charging!

I had one player in my old group who served this function admirably (which is one of the reasons why he's in my new group). I usually didn't have to "send a guy in with a sword", as he was always on the lookout for trouble. This is also much more doable than getting a whole group to change their ways.

Well, they are usually not foolish enough to do the debating in the middle of a dungeon or dangerous situation - usually it is during the "downtime" - unless Mongo runs down to the common room of the inn during the argument and starts killing the patrons, there is not much that kind of solution can do.

[The_Warlock]

Oh yes. I'm familiar.

And to be fair, my last big campaign was a lot less sandboxy, there was a definitive foe with a massive train of clues and prophecies for them to follow.

I'm partially to blame for training them to second guess, however, since I made sure that when they made abysmally poor choices, they suffered the consequences. Keep in mind, they didn't make catastrophic choices all the time, nor did they have many true failures, nonetheless, from their perspective the painful successes seemed like failures.

Rather than examine some of the root causes of their failures, they simply started second guessing any possible action and trying desperately to garner foreknowledge before doing anything.

And then attempting to overplan for so many contingencies that they often lost sight of the actual goal.

I used both in game and out of game to slowly rectify this.

1) A henchwoman, bored out of her mind, basically looked at them during one particularly useless session and said, "Are we going to DO anything? Because if we don't, they still are. Let's just do it the Demon Way. You can't possibly know everything that the enemy can bring to bear, so pick your target, get as much relevant info on it, and do whatever it is that needs to be done. The worst that's going to happen is you are going to die. Rather than have a contingency for every thing you don't know they can do, have a contingency for DEATH, and let's get on with it."

2) This was followed up sometime later by a firm DM directed discussion as a group (as well as individually with the players who seemed most paralyzed by the juxtaposition of risk vs reward) that they were adventurers and heroes.

Their meat and drink was taking risks that ordinary people wouldn't. In addition, there would almost never be a time where some action of consequence didn't involve serious risk. But there was a difference between taking heroic risks for some worthy goal, and being downright stupid.

Attacking the fortified enemy stronghold while playing to their skills and powers - still risky. Charging up to the front gate with your sword out, an insult on your lips, and no idea of what to do beyond that - an invitation for rocks to fall from the sky, you die, no save.

They then started to actually look for ways to do things actively, rather than react to the movements of the enemy. They also generally played to their own strengths and did their best to have escape plans, rather than trying to second guess every action or divine every possible way their enemies might counter them.

They occasionally backslid, but never as badly, and became unholy terrors, even when they were caught off guard and unprepared.

This is a group who, after their "We are Heroes!" revelation, faced a mixed clockwork/normal undead lich, and watching it trap the party rogue inside a Prismatic Sphere with it to kill him at it's leisure, were able to, on the fly, without any foreknowledge, bring all the appropriate spells to bear, IN ORDER, to drop the sphere before the Lich got it's next turn.

The same party who some years prior got their butts handed to them by a half-marilith demon, and began an unorganized retreat, and nearly had 4 characters die because they were arguing about who would be the last one through the hole that the demon couldn't fit through - while the demon hacked at them.

And then spent nearly two session arguing about how stupid it was, demanding that a "retreat order" be developed depending on the type of foe kicking their butt, and then scattering like frightened rats in the next two encounters rather than follow their carefully laid out "escape procedures."

So, my suggestion, make sure the players are clear on the whole point of adventure. And if necessary, provide an in game NPC who watches one of these conversational debacles and basically calls them all on it.

It worked for me, though your mileage may vary.

[Ydars]

I like to run sandboxes, and have sometimes had the same problem.

There are a number of solutions that I am sure you are aware of but here they are anyway to remind you;

1) Some of the arguments could be because the players don't have enough info to make an informed choice or have too much info that doesn't point in any direction. Adjust your description of certain game elements to make one course of action more attractive to several players because of the motifs you include in description. This is a subtle DM tool and this is the perfect situation to use it.
Also, avoid unnecessary "window-dressing" description, which just confuses a certain type of player.

2) Make sure you enforce the idea that if lots of thinking and arguing takes place, it happens in character and takes up REAL game time; this can lead to truncation of some arguments immediately. For example, if they are underground and arguing about which way to go, I would make the characters make will saves to keep the noise down otherwise they start speaking loudly without realising it. Roll for Wandering monsters...........

3) Because of 2) make NPCs overhear and comment on how argumentative and indecisive the PCs are in overheard conversations. This could become an in-game NPC joke and could earn the PCs an annoying nickname. This warns the players that extensive discussions can be overheard and if they don't mind this then create a consequence; something they were recently talking about is overheard and they suffer because of it.

3) Because of 2) and 3) if they argue in game then suddenly something happens that elicts a response; it can be a very small thing, like glimpsing someone climbing on the roof of the building opposite or else someone empties a chamber pot on the PCs or else they get pickpocketed whilst arguing about something.

I mean this is realistic as the PCs are supposed to exist a living breathing world and just by standing around the PCs are influencing that world.

One of the DMs major jobs is to keep things from bogging down. A sandbox is great and one of a series of wonderful ways to play D&D but you still need to use active techniques sometimes to move things along.

[LostSoul]

Do you have an example of this from a game?

I'd like to hear what the fictional situation was as well as how the players were acting at the table.

[fba827]

I also run similar games and have had the occasional occurance that you speak of, however, my experiences have probably not been to the same extreme as you seem to describe (it only happens once in a while; or the players are so overwhelmed with possiblities that they flounder around indecisively until I toss in something focused to follow).

What you may want to consider if embelishing the mundaneness of sitting around to decide. By that I mean ... PCs come to a fork in the road: left or right?
The characters and/or players have their discussions for a minte or two to decide. After that minute, as a DM, just toss out the question "so which way" -- if they're still trying to decide, then embelish the idea that "you hang around on the side of the road, talking amongst yourselves..." after a bit longer of still trying to decide "it is getting late and you have to wonder whether or not to make camp, and you do see the occasional traveler pass you by but not pay you much attention." that sort of thing -- give them the chance to come to a quick decision but then, if they continue, just remind them of the mundane aspect of standing around talking. it's not a penalty or deadline, but just a subtle reminder that you're basicaly just waiting and waiting ...

[Umbran]

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.

[The_Warlock]

As a follow-up to what several people are saying about option paralysis, I've taken to in my current much more sand-boxy game providing a wealth of immediate adventure hooks and jobs - from the apparently straightforward and mundane to the rumors of danger, to the maps to possible adventure.

And while they haven't gotten all the details, I agree it's been important to give them enough info to spark certain types of interest, as well as being fairly clear about the kind of terrain they'll be in, with one or two which are simply "Strong wills and blades needed at Freehold BlahDiBlah for an urgent task."

It does seem to make it easier for them to pick the one's that sound the most interesting to them.

[Filcher]

It seems to me that the party might benefit from a shared purpose. An open, sandbox purpose that they pick out, one goal that benefit all the heroes equally.

They aren't any less free, just more focused in what they want to get done.

[gizmo33]

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.

Since every decision can potentially make a huge difference in the direction of the game or the likelihood of survival or success, every decision is examined and discussed ad nauseum - even when it doesn't need to be, or they don't have all the info they need to make an informed decision.

Let me reframe your question in a way that makes it more humorous and yet more fitting to what my answer to this is:

You've worked on making the dynamics of your world (player choice, etc.) as close to the real world as possible. The real world presents people with choices with infinite complexity, often inscruitable purposes, and often important consequences.

And so what you've observed as a consequence is that your players act like people do in the real world - they fret about their choices, debate the consequences, reconsider their allegiances and strategies, etc. Mission accomplished! :-)

The DnD game world exacerbates these issues because it almost encourages a adventuring party composition made up of people with drastically different backgrounds and outlooks. It's exactly what *would* happen in a situation where an elf, a dwarf, a necromancer, and a berserker all met in a bar. Yes, character development would occur when the beserker and necromancer started arguing. No, the two would probably *not* drop the argument at some point and then decide to risk their lives together in the Caves of the Unknown.

Originally Posted by el-remmen

Anyone else ever have this problem? There have been points where the arguing has seriously threatened my continuing fun in running the game (again, I am not against a session every once in a while that becomes one long debate about where to travel to and what to do once they get there and series of speculations about foes, etc. . . but in this case they are coming every other session or so). I have brought it up to the players out of game and we have tried a few solutions that so far have had little effect.

Yes, I think our DMing styles are very similar and I've had these problems in the past. Various playing groups over the years have come to the conclusion that it's largely their responsibility to make sure that their characters are compatible as designed - this is more than just alignment. For example a bunch of stealth characters in a party with a tank. The tank resents getting attacked by all the monsters, the stealth characters resent the tank constantly giving away their position. It takes some experience playing in your kind of game for players to work through these things.

Originally Posted by el-remmen

Also, one player in particular always seems to backslide into his own obstinacy making everything into an argument and always having to have the last word (there is a lot of slippage between how much of this is the player and how much is the obnoxious character he is playing).

See - your game simulates real life very closely :-)

Originally Posted by el-remmen

Again, this is kind of meta, but allows for the future in-character decisions to make sense for the players.

AFAICT your expectations are entirely meta. To simplify, the game world you've set up mirrors reality, the PCs act like people do in reality, and you're not entertained because it's not heroic. Heroic action adventures are built around simplifications - otherwise they'd be character studies. I think the best solution to your problem is to accept that simplifications and meta-gaming are really a necessary component of heroic adventuring. I'm just talking about achieving a balance (and I think you're on that track anyway), not dispensing with your campaign details.

Originally Posted by el-remmen

Lastly, I am going to try to take a firmer hand in guiding the direction of the campaign. Limiting choices and using the character loyalties and duties to push them in particular directions more forcefully. I am also going to be less "stingy" with information in hopes of their making better and quicker decisions based on it.

Yes, information dispensing by the DM is a huge subject in itself. Basically, as a simulationist IMO you should recognize that you are not physically capable of describing all of the information that a real person who lived for 20-or-so odd years in your campaign would have. You're not really capable of describing, in words, EVERYTHING that a character would see in any given location - every possible transaction between NPCs that might be observed in a bar for example. There's no way that your words, no matter how detailed, could cover all of the reality that a person present in an area can perceive with a combination of their five senses and intuition. As a result, in spite of your (and my) simulationist leanings, we have to accept, as DMs, that our job is to synthesize things that have meaning to the characters - and that can drift uncomfortably close to railroading at times but I think it's unavoidable. I basically tell my players this, and tell them that my descriptions are basically me sorting through the detail of my world and trying to present them with a view of things that I think would best fit their characters priorities.

Originally Posted by el-remmen

EDIT: By the way, I am well aware, that a lot of the advice I will likely get is to make stuff happen to them and give them timelines to complete things, etc. . . I do this already. One character has been repeatedly attacked by assassins, they've been challenged to duels, had to save the town they were staying in before everyone went insane, etc. . . The thing is deadlines are typically tied to a particular adventure and set of events, I think it is cheesy to repeatedly use that device.

Yea - having them sit around and be passive and have stuff happen to them is NOT why you've designed all this stuff for your game world in the first place. As I understand your goals, you'd really want the players to be creative with the elements you've designed, which means taking the initiative. You want the players to carefully think about consequences.

But you're stuck with having to play out Time in your campaign world, and like every other aspect of the game it requires some consent from the players. In the real world, Time passes without anyone's consent, and there's no expectation that the world will make anything interesting or entertaining for anyone. Also, as an inhabitant of the real world, I can live my life without having to get agreement from a psychotic dwarf and flighty elf that I'm forced by the gods to hang out with. Again, what passes for an interesting DnD game (esp. human moderated) is not plausible, setting aside even dragons and wizards and stuff. It's not plausible from a human psychology perspective and I really think it requires some degree of metagaming, railroading, etc. to make work.

[Prism]

I love campaigns like that - as most of ours are. The most successful ones have started with a level or maybe two of a set adventure to get the party bonded - a railroad if you like, though it never feels like that for just a singel level up

Then a few loose PC chosen adventures followed by something about level 4-5 which relates to the 'major plan'. Then about level 7-12 we go fully sandbox and pick which sites to visit based upon all the snippets we learnt about the world over the first 5 levels. At about 10+ the major act begins and might last several levels. Usually the party is left to work out how to solve the problem of the big baddies with very little help from the DM. The cluses gained earlier hint at the easiest path. Sometimes due to good planning the actual adventuring is very easy - all good stuff

Then we alternate between sandbox and major events

[Negflar2099]

I suggest that you talk to your players and try to find out why they spend so much time making decisions and not enough time playing. Tell them your concerns and see what they think. They might be happy with the situation or you might find out they don't like it either. If they don't like it then you guys can work together to come up with a solution.

I had a GM who wanted a very sandbox game but that paralyzed our group. Not so much because of option paralysis. It was more that we felt despite what he was saying the GM did have a plan, it was just a secret plan, and that he really wanted us to go along with it. So it became a game of guess that word in my head where we were trying to play along with the GM's plan when he really did want us to do whatever we wanted. I can't help but feel if we talked about it then maybe we all would have enjoyed the game more.

My other suggestion is that maybe what your group needs is a group goal. Why is the group together? Are they monster hunters? Treasure finders? Action archelogists? Mercenaries? Whatever their goal it has to be more than being adventurers and you can use that goal to push them in a direction. Since it's a goal they chose they should go along with it.

Most importantly of all though is talk to them.

[Janx]

I was actually thinking about blogging on this kind of topic, but the OP's problem's as good as any to start with.

As I see it, GMs who try to run simulationist or sandbox games aren't going to be able to do it to the fullest extent of the definition, nor to a "realistic" level. To truly run a simulation, you need a process/methodology for determining everything. And I mean everything, from the exact x,y,z position of every entity in the world, to what they're carrying, to their current mood and goals. At best, a GM can fake it, and that faking it, is actually the same thing GMs in other styles are doing. The sandbox methodology falls into the same category, it's trying to create an open world, which creates a greater burden on the DM to document everything, to create the possibility of what players might do.

A key problem in the sandbox, is like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion does it. A PC can pick up ALL the quests in the game, but never get around to them. And nothing bad happens. And realistically, the GM has to skip applying those consequences, or the campaign world falls into mega-darkness.

What it gets down to is this: Simulationist or sandbox play is trying to achieve the holy grail of RPGs, which is an environment that is completely impartial, yet "realistic". Where it fails, is that it isn't practical for humans to run, and it doesn't always make for a good story. It's too complex to implement human emotion and drive into NPCs, without a GM to fake it.

But let's stop knocking the play-style's presumptions (or my observations about the play-style). Let's offer some solutions.

Problem: Players have analysis paralysis. They're taking too long to plan anything.

Solution: Apply a "realisim" house rule that says if the party takes too long to initiate action (aka arguing), the timeline advances and consequences of inaction will occur. Meaning, it's fine if the party discusses for 5 minutes which mission they want to do, or how to take out the guards at the gate. It's not fine to spend hours on it.
The idea Ydars #2 suggestion is good. Real time discussion planning costs game-time (since there's no rules resolution going on). You don't have to go so far as the "if you say it, your PC says it", but the general gist is translated to the game.

Problem: the players have too many threads/quests/missions going on

Solution: only give PCs missions/quests/plot hooks related to the current game situation and their PCs goals. On the first game with no real PC goals in a new world, that means giving them a "save the princess" quest that their PCs would undertake. Subsequent games should have missions/side quests related to consequences, new developments, and PC drive goals that develop.

Consider it like real life. If you work for somebody (say as a cop), you get sent on a call, or you see a crime in progress. You don't see 10 crimes in progress, and if you did, you'd still only handle one, and call the others in. Your boss is only going to give you a certain number of projects. If you have side goals (like moving to a new department), you work those angles on the side, while doing the main project.

If you're a freelancer, you don't often get multiple requests at the same time.

Consider it this way, in your sandbox/simulation, the NPCs aren't likely to bring their problems to somebody who's overburdened with their own (like the PCs).

To wrap it further, consider that ultimately, you ARE telling a story. Every PC session is a story, some are just more boring than others (just like every day in your life is a story). Don't make it too convoluted with a million threads. Therefore, talk to the players before you WRITE the next session's material. Ask them, based on the current game situation, what they want to do/pursue/attempt in the next session. Then write to that.

That's actually another part of the solution. Get the party to agree to which "quest(s)" they're actively working on for the next session. Are they going to the Dungeon of Disasterous Doom, or the Cave of Collosal Catastrophe. Commit them to one, and write that dungeon in the next session.

Problem: Too many threads currently in campaign
Solution: The previous solutions are how I avoid the problem of too many threads. Once you got too many, you need to trim them down, to really get the benefit of the advice. Step 1, tell the players you are going to do a new format, as above, to narrow dowb the prep work to just material the players are going to use for the session. Step 2, have NPCs complete some of the other threads, or have them resolve themselves. Basically pull a Mark Twain and drop the magnificent twins down a well, because they weren't as important. Optional Step 3 You can even roll the hero NPCs in later, as the party has to deal with them (perhaps saving the NPCs on a future mission).
Step 4, explain to the PCs that you've done all this to clean up the game world to things the party is actively working on, and they don't need to worry about it. If the old quests come back later, its a so that you can bring new challenges to the party.

Problem: Players are too paranoid
Solution: Firstly, players need to understand that anything bad that happens to the PCs, is either they're fault, or the GM is doing it to create a new problem and story. The game doesn't happen in a vacuum. It doesn't wait for the PCs to go left or right. And ultimately, every interesting thing that happens, is because the GM gives it life. This is true, because the GM has the power to make everything the PCs do be uneventful and boring, as well. Therefore, establish a contract with the players that the GM's job is to create challenges, drama, setbacks, and problems that are entertaining, and within the ability of the players to deal with (though it may require some time and effort on the PCs part). If the GM didn't do this, every dungeon would be empty, all NPCs would be content and need no help, and nobody would resist the PCs actions.

This first step establishes that it is the DM's job to screw with the party, and the game would be boring if he didn't. Next, you have to establish the right time to screw with the party. Like Red Herrings, and Bluffing in poker, you need to do it seldomly. Make more missions straight-forward, than crooked. Plot-twists should be done at the right time, not everytime. Consider it like fighting. If you do the same attack 3 times in a row, you set a pattern. Then you do the 4th so it looks like the last 3, but is actually something different.

Problem: Players are argumentative
Solution: Prior suggestions should reduce this, but you may need to directly address it. The players need to understand that discussing things should involve everyone, and it needs to be decisive to be valuable. Otherwise, it's arguing for arguing's sake. Consider the following format: every player should get to make a statement. Every player should try to state their concern about the problem, as well as what problem they percieve (many arguments are because 2 people aren't solving the same problem, and don't know it). If a player repeats himself, he's done, he's not adding anything new. After that, the party needs to vote, and the players need to agree to stick to it.

Problem: players stick to "doing what my PC would do", rather than good of group
Solution: The real problem with this mentality is that it is used to go against the will of the group. It's often used so the PC can act like a jerk to another PC. The reality is, in almost any situation, the player COULD come up with a rationalization for the PC to foster getting along, and working together. Step 1, make sure your Player knows you have a dim view of this behavior, and why. Step 2, avoid creating situations that create conflict that you don't want the party arguing about. It's one thing for a player of an elf-hating dwarf to act like a jerk to the player of an elf. It's another to expect the paladin to help sacrifice babies in order to progress the adventure. The reality is, you may want the players to feel conflicted about NPCs doing something. You should avoid having the players be conflicted with each other. This requires help by the players, to not make mountains of mole-hills, and the DM to not agitate things.

Problem: player is contrary, just to be contrary
Solution: Story: I sat in a communication class for work, where 6 teams had to come to a consensus. It was done by each team send in a representative to a 10 minute "discussion" round, with the end of the 3rd round culminating in a vote. In the 1st round, we learned that nobody was listening, they were just repeating themselves. In the 2nd round, we got more orderly debate. We also discovered that some people were deliberately choosing the "worst" option, just to be contrary. They had their justification. They wouldn't budge. So between the 2nd and 3rd round, some of us figured it out, and we talked to each team to send in specific people for the last round. We convinced each team to send in the more passive member, not the driven aggressive one. The result was, we actually got a vote done. THe exercise wasn't about making the right choice, it was actually getting a vote done, before the time limit was reached (by not wasting time arguing).

The key lesson was this: Some people are Drivers. They set a goal, and they push very hard to achieve it. They usually suck at listening. Some people are contrarians. They try to argue with anything. Combine the two (and they usually do), and you've got a roadblock.

Here's the thing, roleplaying is a form improvisational theatre. In Improv, a blocking action is anything that prevents another actor from getting involved, or moving the scene forward. It turns out real life conversation, is also a form of this. Thus, your best players, and your best conversationalists, are those that include others, and listen to others.

The point then is that habitual blockers don't get invited back to parties. They're boors, they're rude, they're argumentative. After explaing how being personable works, you're going to have to point out that non-personable people don't get to play. The reason is, that almost all gaming groups except any PC. They get a pass, because the game must go on. In reality, nobody would hang with a jerk, or invite them back. So apply real life common sense here.

[Raven Crowking]

The easiest solution to this problem is to present situations that, within the sandbox, demand action within a certain timeframe, or there will be consequences.

Examples from my own games:

1) A villian begins creating a power base. Only the PCs know that he is a villain (they saw him in his true form). The longer the party does nothing, the stronger he becomes, and the more he infringes upon their ability to operate within the area.

2) Evil undead druids incite orcs to attack locals and merchants. A bounty is places on orc ears, and hostile orc encounters increase until something is done about it.

3) A villian the PCs thwarted (but did not kill) begins sending summoned creatures to assassinate the PCs.

4) A rival adventuring group begins to vie for the prize....he who hesitates has lost.

5) Aboleths are mining underneath a lakeside town. Unless they are stopped, parts of the town collapse. This has already happened once (the townsfolk think a wizard did it).

Basically, whatever you main "world events" arcs are, just decide how bad you are willing to let things get before the NPCs deal with it, craft a timetable, and then stick to the timetable. Nothing down about the aboleths? After a year, part of the town collapses and there is a cholera outbreak. Nothing done about the orcs? Raids increase over several years, as more and larger orc nests appear in the area. Finally, the King conscripts the able-bodied to fight them. Content to let that villian consolidate his power? He begins charging tolls in his area, and eventually becomes an Evil Overlord. The PCs are made outlaw in his lands. Ignoring those first fumbling attempts to assassinate you? The summoned creatures get tougher. Eventually -- just considering the odds here -- they succeed.

In real life, you could just not go to work, but the odds are that there would be consequences that you would rather avoid. Do the same with the game, so that the players have some sense of urgency about at least a few plot threads, and your sandbox will kick-start back into life.


RC

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by el-remmen

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.

Is there a unobtrusive way you could direct these discussions? Speed them up? Frankly, to just tell them when they're engaged in unproductive speculation and paranoid dithering.

.... even when it doesn't need to be, or they don't have all the info they need to make an informed decision.

One solution to this is give them all the information needed to make an informed choice. Even if you need to resort to a direct address from the 'author'. Sure, this is the meta approach, but it works, if the players are having a hard time distinguishing between meaningful and less-than-meaningful choices. PC's complicating things on their own can be a wonderful thing, but it's seems your group is on the verge of going down the rabbit hole.

I have brought it up to the players out of game and we have tried a few solutions that so far have had little effect.

Are you sure these aren't latent personality conflicts coming to the fore?

One of them was to take these discussion to messageboards/email between sessions whenever possible.

My group does this to great effect, though largely so we can show off what clever writers we are (hmmm, I could be projecting here).

This would work, except that a couple of players find that this conflicts with their playstyle - they want all their decisions made from their character's POV first...

Can't they see that's not working? Or do they think the campaign is working?

Also, one player in particular always seems to backslide into his own obstinacy making everything into an argument and always having to have the last word (there is a lot of slippage between how much of this is the player and how much is the obnoxious character he is playing).

This really sounds like a personality conflict.

Again, this is kind of meta, but allows for the future in-character decisions to make sense for the players.

I've always found it odd that in RPG discussions, the stuff that the word 'meta' denotes the only real things going on.

Lastly, I am going to try to take a firmer hand in guiding the direction of the campaign. Limiting choices and using the character loyalties and duties to push them in particular directions more forcefully.

Personally, I think out-of-game agreements would be of more benefit here.

I am also going to be less "stingy" with information in hopes of their making better and quicker decisions based on it.

Good idea.