How to ease players into a sandbox style?

[Crazy Jerome]

See, that's what I *thought* I was doing. And for little things like the example of the Clockwork Labyrinth above it worked. However when it comes to larger goals about which direction to steer the adventure, that's when the paralysis sets in. Here's an example that illustrates this:

The PCs just defeated a cranium rat hive mind, and ended the session in the sewers; they were down there to (a) figure out why the cranium rats had conspires to assassinate an NPC, and (b) access a portal. In between sessions I sent out an email asking the group for their next direction, presenting several options: "You could go thru the portal to the clockwork plane of Mechanus in pursuit of the Hollow Woman who purportedly masterminded the assassination attempt? Alternately you could go thru the portal to the wild Beastlands to find the blood magic ritual the NPC is supposed to be pursuing? You could return to NPC and run what you've learned by her? Or you could explore the fair sewers some more?

What followed were several emails reflecting the party wanted to go every which way (or didn't have an opinion). Then we met up and it took a good hour to arrive at a goal, with the responses I described in my OP.

In short, I totally agree about limiting options being freeing, but there seems to be something more to it than just number of options.

Absolutely there is more to it than number of options. It is which ones you pick, and how that frames the choices. Or as Janx so aptly put it, the difference between theoretical choices and CHOICES!

It is difficult to use specifics here, because I don't know your players and their characters. But let me make some assumptions for discussion sake. The ones that didn't have an opinion and/or had an opinion but it was mainly about "that sounds fun", aren't being confronted with CHOICES. The could return to the NPC and then do the portals in turn. Or they could do a portal and the NPC will be there when they get back. It's just order of operations.

That may not be true, in fact--and I kind of doubt it given that you said you've run sandbox for active players before. But it is what they think. So the framing of the choice is what creates that mistaken perception. For these guys, you may need to actually say something like, "You can go through the portal after the ritual, but legend says it is one way, and a long way back, unless you hit the phase of the moon right. Or you can go talk to the aging NPC with a hacking cough before she finally buys the farm."

That's part of what I was hinting at with out of game discussion of limits. You need it to be crystal clear that are upsides and downsides to each choice, which is what makes them CHOICES. If beating them over the head with it for now is the only way to do it, so be it. They'll quickly catch on, and start picking up on more subtle framing clues, in game. And if something goes totally sour, later, due to some misunderstanding of subtle clues, you'll have already established that is ok to drop out of game for a minute and clear it up. I average doing this about once every other session (more if tired, long gaps between play, less otherwise): "You did catch that the Baron is apparently planning to kill the hostages one at a time, starting tonight, right?"

OTOH, for the players that are already aware of real CHOICE, but having disagreements, either the disagreement are germane to the party and play in game, or they are not. Not is something like one guy likes portal 1 because he (the player) just likes jumping through portals, while the other guy wants to talk to the NPC because he likes to talk. Not that those aren't valid preferences, and should be discussed and catered to overtime, but those are player preferences that should not be the main thing driving the CHOICE. (They are more of a nice sauce you pour over the choice after you pick it.)

But let us say instead that character #1 (not the player) hates the Hollow Woman so much that it has blinded him to anything else. Meanwhile, character #2 has developed a protector-type attachment to the NPC, who may be threated by her knowledge. So of course they disagree on what to do. You want this! They don't need an hour to resolve it, but get rid of all the stuff above, quickly, out of game if necessary, and it probably won't take 15 minutes. Or alternately, every character has some competing priority like this, and it does take an hour--a wonderful, intense hour where you largely sit back and relax and watch the players run the game by themselves.

This is why I play sandbox. The players get to do what they want--and then they decided to go back to the sewers, and the Hollow Woman gets a minion to kill the NPC. Now characters #1 and #2 have a history--a grudge, or mutual sorrow, or any number of logical outcomes that fit their conceptions of their characters.

Hmm, could you explain framing the limits of a box more? That example you gave sounds un-heroic and definitely not what I'd want in a Planescape game where a lot of the fun is exploring. But it sounds like the kernel of a good idea I might be able to adapt.

Sure, I used a geographic example, because those are easiest. But any outside limit you place on the campaign, characters, adventure, etc. will work. A Planescape, go anywhere, do anything, is too much like telling the 6 year old to "make art". So try, "the characters are paragons of honor" (or chivalry or deceit or even several of those. Or even tougher on some groups, "geased to never tell the truth outside the party". (That last one is a thin patina of in-game rationalization on a box limit chosen to constrain the courses of action and get them in trouble.)

You can even turn the typical plotted story on its head. instead of one PC being the "chosen one" or the "heir to the imperial throne" or whatever, with the rest of the PCs as retainers, and making the campaign about gaining the rightful throne--try all of the PCs are "chosen" or "distant heirs to the imperial throne". Meanwhile, chosen or heirs are getting slowly but systematically wiped out. Now, in that setup it should be understood that doing the "chosen" big activity or gaining the throne is not the object. Rather, they can try that if they want, or try to run, or try to uncover what is happening, or even ignore it (albeit to their peril). No matter what they do, that threat is hanging over their heads, and getting worse. It constrains their choices--just not so much that if they want to spend almost or even all of the campaign plane-hopping as magical merchants, they can. Make that explicit up front. Then if you ever reach the point where the shadowy organization, in the background killing all these people, really ticks off the players enough, the campaign will pivot, and it will be their CHOICE. If they don't, well that was a CHOICE, too.

 

[Janx]

Maybe I'm not following you here, but how does this approach help with easing a group of "adventure path" players into a more "sandbox" style of play

I probably should have said Opportunity OR Problem.

But the point is, one way to look at a plot hook is that it really is information has come to the players attention, do they choose to use that information.

To run a more Adventure Pathy game, you keep throwing Problems at the players, and they have no choice but to deal with it. You provoke a response when you present a problem.

My concept of a Problem is that it is the kind of thing a person cannot ignore. One time, I was in a concall with my boss and I noticed water dripping down from my ceiling in my bedroom. I had a choice, keep talking to my boss, or fix the leak before the water wrecked the sheetrock and the furniture. My boss said goodbye, and I spent the day fixing the leak in my attic that I had JUST caught in time.

That is the example of a Problem. Ignoring it is technically a choice, but no rational person is going to because the outcome would affect them personally.

To make players do what you want, you present them with problems. They are stuck dealing with them. That's the opposite mindset of a sandbox.

Opportunities, are things that are OPTIONAL. You can pursue it or not. If you don't pursue it, it is not an immediate loss or penalty to you.

In real life, that could mean 3 offers for work in 3 different roles. Nothing bad will happen because you did not take offer #3.

Sandboxes seem like they run better with Opportunities than Problems.

In a generic sandbox, a GM might make 100 cool places to explore. While it's cool those places exist and the PC can go there, there is no built-in reason WHY a PC would go there. Once you fluff up Opportunities at those places, you have a motivating factor for a PC to go there.

If you have a PC who wants more magical power, you create one or two Opportunities for him to get more power. The Dungeon of Disastrous Doom has a lost artifact. Lord Puffinstuff has aquired a new nifty book of knowledge, and by the way, another PC has business with him...

By framing the choices as applicable Opportunities to the players, they will pursue one, because an Opportunity is a plot hook framed to fit somebody's goal.

I may make a PC who seeks political power. Telling me about 100 dungeons I can explore or 50 rat-killing jobs I can take is NOT what I'm looking for. Telling me Lord Puffinstuff is looking for some discrete men may be EXACTLY the Opportunity I'm looking for. I will get some reputation with the Lord, and probably get some dirt on him.

 

[Quickleaf]

Quoting myself - slightly scary.

I'm not suggesting a jobs listing. Instead asking the players if they prefer to prepare for war and all that comes with it, or would rather head off to explore strange lands and cultures, or fancy investigative gameplay. As the PCs get further into each option the GM hopefully unwraps the gameplay within the limited open-ended options, e.g. the NPC outlines that colonists are going to have to acquire resources, clear territory, make allies and build defences.

[MENTION=83796]nedjer[/MENTION] I meant "jobs board" in the loose sense of quest-givers who provide PCs with paid opportunities which they are free to decline, usually with no repercussion. Sorry if I was unclear or misinterpreted you.

Would half those options even have occurred to them, if you hadn't emailed them? Perhaps if you had not presented all those options as viable, they would have gone with whatever 'obvious choice' they thought was 'expected' of them.

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] Well, definitely those 4 choices were on the players' radar screen. After the previous adventure, they knew it was a bi-directional portal and that Mechanus and Beastlands were relevant to their quest. There was also talk among the party about whether they should return to the NPC and re-assess what was happening. And a couple of humorous comments about bringing order to Sigil's sewers. So, I was more providing a reflection and reminder than anything new.

But, stepping back, are you suggesting that listing options in the attempt to focus and limit choices actually has the opposite effect in that obscures the 'expected' route for linear players?

Absolutely there is more to it than number of options. It is which ones you pick, and how that frames the choices. Or as Janx so aptly put it, the difference between theoretical choices and CHOICES!

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] Does capitalized CHOICES means "meaningful choices" not of the "left or right" or "in which order" variety?

It is difficult to use specifics here, because I don't know your players and their characters. But let me make some assumptions for discussion sake. The ones that didn't have an opinion and/or had an opinion but it was mainly about "that sounds fun", aren't being confronted with CHOICES. The could return to the NPC and then do the portals in turn. Or they could do a portal and the NPC will be there when they get back. It's just order of operations.

It sounds like you're saying I should give the players more information to clarify just what the consequences and stakes of their choices are.

I've been hesitant to throw more info at them because they've got a lot of info already that they're having difficult keeping straight - which I thought was contributing to their analysis paralysis.

That may not be true, in fact--and I kind of doubt it given that you said you've run sandbox for active players before.

While I've done a bit of sandboxing before, most of my history with DMing leaned far more to the adventure path style. So, yes, there's a good chance I need to relearn stuff too.

But it is what they think. So the framing of the choice is what creates that mistaken perception. For these guys, you may need to actually say something like, "You can go through the portal after the ritual, but legend says it is one way, and a long way back, unless you hit the phase of the moon right. Or you can go talk to the aging NPC with a hacking cough before she finally buys the farm."

Now that's a really interesting point!

On the face of it, you're suggesting explicitly explaining consequences of choices, but you've also incorporated time limits into the choice. Do you think time limits specifically are a handy technique to transition players gradually from an adventure path style to a sandbox style?

But let us say instead that character #1 (not the player) hates the Hollow Woman so much that it has blinded him to anything else. Meanwhile, character #2 has developed a protector-type attachment to the NPC, who may be threated by her knowledge. So of course they disagree on what to do. You want this! They don't need an hour to resolve it, but get rid of all the stuff above, quickly, out of game if necessary, and it probably won't take 15 minutes. Or alternately, every character has some competing priority like this, and it does take an hour--a wonderful, intense hour where you largely sit back and relax and watch the players run the game by themselves.

Oh I would love this! Really the game is just getting underway, but that's something to shoot for.

Sure, I used a geographic example, because those are easiest. But any outside limit you place on the campaign, characters, adventure, etc. will work. A Planescape, go anywhere, do anything, is too much like telling the 6 year old to "make art". So try, "the characters are paragons of honor" (or chivalry or deceit or even several of those. Or even tougher on some groups, "geased to never tell the truth outside the party". (That last one is a thin patina of in-game rationalization on a box limit chosen to constrain the courses of action and get them in trouble.)

To be clear, in my Planescape game I discussed with everyone before starting that their PCs had some connection to an NPC prophet who was creating a movement of unprecedented proportions. So there was a hook from the get-go, and there most definitely is a meta-plot which is insinuated into most smaller areas of exploration.

It went something like this:

Hey small world that we all know each other. Let's play D&D!

Who's gonna DM?

X and Y would like to play since they both DM games already and seem to DM a lot.

I volunteered, saying I would love to run a Planescape campaign. Short description of Planescape.

Everyone said it sounded fun.

I e-mail the group with a bit more info, then give some guidelines to making PCs, including that they all should have a connection to the fey prophetess Karadja (blahblahblahPlanescapeissexyblahblahblah).

I probably should have said Opportunity OR Problem.

<snip>

To make players do what you want, you present them with problems. They are stuck dealing with them. That's the opposite mindset of a sandbox.

Opportunities, are things that are OPTIONAL. You can pursue it or not. If you don't pursue it, it is not an immediate loss or penalty to you.

Sandboxes seem like they run better with Opportunities than Problems.

@Janx I'm with you so far.

In a generic sandbox, a GM might make 100 cool places to explore. While it's cool those places exist and the PC can go there, there is no built-in reason WHY a PC would go there. Once you fluff up Opportunities at those places, you have a motivating factor for a PC to go there.

By framing the choices as applicable Opportunities to the players, they will pursue one, because an Opportunity is a plot hook framed to fit somebody's goal.

Hey, this is Planescape, the WHY is the biggest part of the adventure.

Now I'm trying to navigate this grey zone where there the players haven't solidified much in the way of goals for their PCs (as they're coming from an adventure path style), but I am trying to hook them into adventures using "chinks in the reactive gamer armor". If that makes sense.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I kind of appropriated Janx's CHOICES thing, but what I took him to mean, and certainly what I mean, is not only meaningful but outright juicy. Yeah, left or right door with no info is not meaningful. Let the players find out that left is fast and risky while right is relatively slow and safe, and it is meaningful but not much more. Let the players find out that fast gives them a good shot at the legendary artifact, but likely leaves a beloved NPC to a grisly fate--and you probably get passion. You'll especially get it if they need that artifact to do something relatively noble.

On this I may diverge from Janx a bit on the opportunity versus problem thing. I mostly agree with opportunities being the main draw--more carrot than stick. But I like the way problems complicate the action and make the players care. So in Janx's terms, I see it as instead of giving the PCs a problem they must deal with (e.g. being shot), you give them several opportunities that each have associated problems. And when necessary, you telegraph the problems (or some of them). Now, the players are picking which opportunity they want and which problem set they want.

So on how much information to give, it is not so much amount as what you give. People can handle large numbers of choices when they are structured somehow. So keep those opportunities down to a relatively small list (no more than seven, often around 3-4). Then use as many problems as the group can handle to complicate things. Now, it can get complicated when you tie the problems together, and the whole thing becomes impossible to graph. It sometimes works better with new sandbox players to have:

1. Opportunity 1: Problem A, Problem B, etc.
2. Opportunity 2: Problem X, Problem Y, etc.

Nor do you need to give them the whole list. They need the whole list of opportunities (explicitly or fairly clear in game). With the problems, you can, and probably should, be more circumspect. You tell them about the rabid undead crocodiles because you know two of the characters will be creeped out about it. You reserve the plane hopping goblin thief, because that is a nasty surprise. And one opportunity might even be explicitly listed as "Problem To Be Discovered Later, No Doubt At the Most Inconvenient Moment".

BTW, what really makes this sing for me is once the players get accustomed to it, the next step is to inform them that I will lie to them about the nature of the problems. I'll do that in background material. I'll do it via NPCs. I'll plant misleading clues (not mere red herrings). Not much, but just enough to keep things in doubt, no more than 1 in 20 clues. So now, just getting told about rabid undead crocodiles is the best of both worlds. Two players are creeped out now at the mere thought, and the party may be surprised to discover there was never such a threat. You have to be careful about bait and switch here, of course, but as long everyone knows that information is suspect until confirmed, it works great.

The best thing about it is when analysis paralysis does set in (as it inevitably will with that much complication), all someone has to say is, "We don't know enough to decide. So the real choice right here is what to do to get more information so that we can decide." After I prompt that 10 or 15 times, some of the players catch on and start managing that aspect themselves.

You might not prefer the lying bit if the players are wanting more action adventure than intrigue/skulking, as it definitely encourages the latter. But like anything else, if you want a mix, it is fairly easy to callibrate once the players get into the spirit of the thing.

 

[Janx]

I kind of appropriated Janx's CHOICES thing, but what I took him to mean, and certainly what I mean, is not only meaningful but outright juicy. Yeah, left or right door with no info is not meaningful. Let the players find out that left is fast and risky while right is relatively slow and safe, and it is meaningful but not much more. Let the players find out that fast gives them a good shot at the legendary artifact, but likely leaves a beloved NPC to a grisly fate--and you probably get passion. You'll especially get it if they need that artifact to do something relatively noble.

I had appropriated "choice" vs. "Choice" years ago from a business article.

the lesson being that life has lots of "choices" and small-minded people will snark at you that you always had a choice. You'll often hear the quote "you chose to do that...." from these type of people.

But the reality is, in most situations, a rational person has a high probability of choosing one path, and most other choices, while technically possible are not probable. Consider waking up in the morning. You could:
go back to sleep
play hookie
go to work
kill yourself for no apparent reason
go on a crime-spree

Most rational, employed people will go to work. At least 2 of those possible choices are not palatable to the decider.

Whereas, a real "Choice" is a meaningful fork in the road. There are multiple viable paths and there are not social expectations and norms that force the decider down one of those paths.


The adaptation of that point in D&D is that just having a bunch of choices is not enough. The kind of person the player is rules out a number of those choices such that they are not really options. A player who prefers to play good, heroic characters is not going to choose to do evil things. So claiming he had the option to kill the princess instead of saving her is disingenuous.

The point then, to make the game interesting, is to present your players with Choices that actually matter. Paths that are both appealing and viable to the player/NPC.

The case in the OP's example of the portals seems pretty obvious. Hero types will drill in deeper to kill the bad guy/save the day. it is a non-choice unless there is another viable way to stop the bad guy, especially if he outclasses them.

This actually forms the inverse strategy that Problems and Opportunities base on.

Once you know what kinds of things appeal to their goals, you make Opportunities and Problems that fulfill that goal. Mentally, the player has no "choice" but to pursue it.

Once you've gotten your Opportunities/Problems aligned to that, the trick to not being abusive is to make sure there is variety so the player has some Choices to make.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] Well, definitely those 4 choices were on the players' radar screen. After the previous adventure, they knew it was a bi-directional portal and that Mechanus and Beastlands were relevant to their quest. There was also talk among the party about whether they should return to the NPC and re-assess what was happening. And a couple of humorous comments about bringing order to Sigil's sewers. So, I was more providing a reflection and reminder than anything new.

But, stepping back, are you suggesting that listing options in the attempt to focus and limit choices actually has the opposite effect in that obscures the 'expected' route for linear players?

That is my suspicion - that calling these out as 'viable options' can actually induce option paralysis. I don't know though.

Really, I have to say that IME a 1 hour debate is really not that bad. I've seen turtle players who will happily debate away an entire 5 hour game session.

 

[Janx]

That is my suspicion - that calling these out as 'viable options' can actually induce option paralysis. I don't know though.

.

I kind of doubt it was the cause of the analysis paralysis. It is common practice for a project manager or mediator to list out the options that a group has identified through its discussions.

You can't blame the list or the guy who formalized the list for causing the problem.

the party itself lacked leadership to reign in the conversation. That doesn't mean one player decides. But one player should have taken that list and called a vote. To get the party moving.

 

[Quickleaf]

The best thing about it is when analysis paralysis does set in (as it inevitably will with that much complication), all someone has to say is, "We don't know enough to decide. So the real choice right here is what to do to get more information so that we can decide." After I prompt that 10 or 15 times, some of the players catch on and start managing that aspect themselves.

Did you say 10 to 15 times?

The case in the OP's example of the portals seems pretty obvious. Hero types will drill in deeper to kill the bad guy/save the day. it is a non-choice unless there is another viable way to stop the bad guy, especially if he outclasses them.

This actually forms the inverse strategy that Problems and Opportunities base on.

A bit more about my situation seems in order.

I sent out an e-mail to the group about what they wanted to do, and here's what I heard back from 4 of 5 players:

2XB2 is thinking we should clean up the sewers and impose some order. He's also looking forward to exploring for more clockwork toys in the vicinity. Maybe exploring the sewers could also involve finding out more about the theives' guild and their activities too? But I'm open to anything.

Kuonu wants to explore the sewers a bit, and then go to Mechanus for the hollow woman.

Aside from taking a very long nap, I'd like to either investigate what's going on with Karadja or go through the portal.

'll tag along with the party for now and see what leads I can get on the thieves' guild.

So about half the party was motivated in pursuit of the Hollow Woman. It was only when we met up for the next session that the decision was made to actually pursue the Hollow Woman. And when they came knocking on the Hollow Woman's front door, while there was a combat with her lackeys, there was none with her, just a really creepy chat and some kind of armistice. At least so far. So your point about "non-choices" doesn't seem to apply to my particular situation, but it is a good thing to keep in mind nevertheless.

Once you know what kinds of things appeal to their goals, you make Opportunities and Problems that fulfill that goal. Mentally, the player has no "choice" but to pursue it.

Once you've gotten your Opportunities/Problems aligned to that, the trick to not being abusive is to make sure there is variety so the player has some Choices to make.

Thanks for the comments Janx I look forward to teasing out some more goals from the PCs that I can hook into.

That is my suspicion - that calling these out as 'viable options' can actually induce option paralysis. I don't know though.

Really, I have to say that IME a 1 hour debate is really not that bad. I've seen turtle players who will happily debate away an entire 5 hour game session.

Argh, that kind of "turtling" (good word!) drives me nuts. I asked the group to instate a caller who would deliver the group's final decision to me, so I could let go of needing to "facilitate" their decision-making. To quote [MENTION=6957]TheAuldGrump[/MENTION] : "Fly!"

With my particular group I think part of the problem also is that there is no party leader. There's a quirky rogue modron...who is altogether too bizarre to lead, a stoic minotaur...who likes to follow, a joke-cracking pixie...who likes to crack jokes, a wilden druid...who is obsessed with nature, and a shady halfling...who just joined the crew and has his own agenda.

A party with Eadric the paladin this is not

 

[Janx]

A bit more about my situation seems in order.

I sent out an e-mail to the group about what they wanted to do, and here's what I heard back from 4 of 5 players:

2XB2 is thinking we should clean up the sewers and impose some order. He's also looking forward to exploring for more clockwork toys in the vicinity. Maybe exploring the sewers could also involve finding out more about the theives' guild and their activities too? But I'm open to anything.

Kuonu wants to explore the sewers a bit, and then go to Mechanus for the hollow woman.

Aside from taking a very long nap, I'd like to either investigate what's going on with Karadja or go through the portal.

'll tag along with the party for now and see what leads I can get on the thieves' guild.

so it sounds like 1 guy wants gadgets/items (clockwork toys)
2 guys want thieves guild (presumably because they hate them?)
And maybe 2 guys want to chase this hollowwoman

I realize that 1 of the guys I listed is a duplicate. But we are chasing some goals out of this.

Any Opportunities you put in about thieves guild will likely be pursued by 2 players.

the same for this hollowwoman (well, that's already dealt with).

anyway, the easy thing to do is make an Opportunity in the sewer about a Thieves Guild storehouse down there that had gotten in a shipment of ClockWork parts....

the party will likely go for it.

Bear in mind, my approach probably violates some sandbox rule of the GM producing content ignorant of player interests. But I see it as, why build dungeons when the players want city intrigue?

 

[Quickleaf]

I kind of doubt it was the cause of the analysis paralysis. It is common practice for a project manager or mediator to list out the options that a group has identified through its discussions.

You can't blame the list or the guy who formalized the list for causing the problem.

True enough, but it would be fair to "blame" me if I didn't read the group's energy right.

the party itself lacked leadership to reign in the conversation. That doesn't mean one player decides. But one player should have taken that list and called a vote. To get the party moving.

Yeah, in the past I've always had an instigator player who just went up and did something, or I'd get things going with a "bang." However, somehow I recalled the old Caller from, what was it, OD&D? Anyhow, I asked one of the players to be the group's Caller to keep things moving.

anyway, the easy thing to do is make an Opportunity in the sewer about a Thieves Guild storehouse down there that had gotten in a shipment of ClockWork parts....

the party will likely go for it.

Well I was looking for ways to stack goals in quests....just not what I had in mind.

Bear in mind, my approach probably violates some sandbox rule of the GM producing content ignorant of player interests. But I see it as, why build dungeons when the players want city intrigue?

Heh. We're talking spectrum here, no absolutes. Personally my ideal is probably 75% sandbox and 25% adventure path. I don't know what I'd call it. A "lazy surveyor beach walk" ?