How to ease players into a sandbox style?

[Quickleaf]

How - I'm going to travel the world doing heroic things, preferably by boat.

What - I'm looking for a sword that can spout flame so I can do heroic things.

How - We're going to act as an arm of the local government gone rogue in enemy territory.

What - We want to infiltrate a lizard kingdom where they think diamonds are sacred.

How - Part of our mission could involve starting our own religious sect.

What - I want to own a temple.

How - We want to be a spy unit traveling as bards presenting theatre in each town.

What - There should be a neighboring kingdom of downtrodden people with a king we can topple.

So "how" is about big picture motives, their characters' place in the larger scheme of things. Right?

It sounds like you're saying that the DM asking the players about this big picture motive will help circumvent "analysis paralysis" which comes up when asking them about point-to-point strategy.

When we started this game I provided their starting motive. I did that because I couldn't get feedback between games and because at that point we didn't know if it would be an ongoing game or a one-off.

In retrospect, using your advice, by giving them the "how" top down I may have limited their choices to "whats".

 

[nedjer]

So "how" is about big picture motives, their characters' place in the larger scheme of things. Right?

It sounds like you're saying that the DM asking the players about this big picture motive will help circumvent "analysis paralysis" which comes up when asking them about point-to-point strategy.

When we started this game I provided their starting motive. I did that because I couldn't get feedback between games and because at that point we didn't know if it would be an ongoing game or a one-off.

In retrospect, using your advice, by giving them the "how" top down I may have limited their choices to "whats".

This works out all ways up. As a team the players know the game's going to plug directly into their interests on various levels and each separate player has something of their own too look forward to.

At the same time, the exact who, when, where and why aren't known - allowing the GM plenty of freedom to devise the personalities, steps and events involved in, e.g. building a temple and gaining a following.

The GM can go beyond the brief for some surprises, gets some help shaping the gameplay and is able to reward shared goals . . . all for a five minute chat with the players

 

[Mark CMG]

So "how" is about big picture motives, their characters' place in the larger scheme of things. Right?

I do think that is true but also in getting a handle on the way in whcih they wish to achieve goals during the campaign, e.g. through combat prowess, political maneuvering, by theft or con, etc. Armed with that knowledge, any situational hook you toss out in relation to the many places they might be near can be framed as a challenge to those motives and machinations. (Hmmm... Motives & Machinations, eh? Eureka! I've got my next supplement name! )

It sounds like you're saying that the DM asking the players about this big picture motive will help circumvent "analysis paralysis" which comes up when asking them about point-to-point strategy.

When we started this game I provided their starting motive. I did that because I couldn't get feedback between games and because at that point we didn't know if it would be an ongoing game or a one-off.

In retrospect, using your advice, by giving them the "how" top down I may have limited their choices to "whats".

I think it does help avert stagnation and blasé attitudes regarding exploration and adventure because they've given you the ammunition to always be appealing to their original concept of self-perception as PCs in a world yet to be fully discovered. It should also help you fine tune locations and personalities to focus on appealing to their adventuring sensibilities. Every What can be geared toward thier How, by design in your spare time or in the moment when they inevitably take their left turns on you. And, hopefully, if they are all giving you at least a little be of something to work with, you'll know how to push the right buttons in any given situation to appeal to each individual as well as the group.

 

[Mark CMG]

This works out all ways up. As a team the players know the game's going to plug directly into their interests on various levels and each separate player has something of their own too look forward to.

At the same time, the exact who, when, where and why aren't known - allowing the GM plenty of freedom to devise the personalities, steps and events involved in, e.g. building a temple and gaining a following.

The GM can go beyond the brief for some surprises, gets some help shaping the gameplay and is able to reward shared goals . . . all for a five minute chat with the players

Indeed. I can further add that while even the GM might have no knowledge of any given situation prior to designing or winging it, when necessary, because they know the tune they can make up the dance as they go.


Without sounding too highfalutin, I like to refer back to something I learned regarding literary writing, because I am a big fan of creating interesting characters adding in some conflict, and seeing where things go without a predetermined plot, which is essentially Sandbox Theory 101. There's a practice known as a story web, and for our purposes an Adventure Web, that helps keep things on track from the world view side of the equation. As long as every NPC and creature has some sort of motivation of their own, what can potentially happen in any given situation is not too much of a mystery for the GM and can bring a level of verisimilitude to the world for the players and their PCs even when entirely in unknown lands. While they might not know these motivations from the outset, when they are discovered, it makes sense to them. Likewise, that consistency helps them divine those motivations. Of course, it might be as simple as a creature being hungry but it could also be as guarded as an NPC being one of only a few who knows he is the bastard child of the king. A brief note during creation/design keeps you on track, even if it is an NPC you come up with on the fly.

If you want an even more immersive experience for the players, try to think in terms of the Adventure Web and how these various disparate motivations overlap and converge, each one a tug on a strand that is felt through the Adventure Web. If the PCs wound the aforementioned creature and drive it toward the cabin in the woods where the bastard is hiding out, how mad is he going to be if he finds out who drove it there? Is he angry because that creature was the ersatz guardian of his western flank? Will he think enough of the PCs to seek them out to help with his Machiavellian plans to overthrow the government? It all feeds the same design beast for you. And, because you know the PCs triggers, there's no reason you cannot happen to have the bastard couch his plans in a reward that would appeal to the PCs. It's not railroading as long as they have a choice and there are others meaningful things for them to choose as alternatives. I like to think of this approach as Schrödinger's Plot. No one, even the GM, knows if there's a plot until the PCs decide to open the box and set things in motion, and the plot is never complete until the PCs have finished with the business at hand and moved on to further adventures, which might also be pinged much further out on an ever-widening Adventure Web.