Guiding players to more sandbox-y play?

[S'mon]

I agree. With my group, sometimes this works, and often it doesn't. What happens in practice is...

• The players 'decide' on one course of action and end up pursuing another which I haven't prepared for (since I prepared for what they said at the end of the last session).
  
• The players can't decide because they're split or overwhelmed or whatever, and agree to decide via email...and then no emails are sent and no decision made.
  
• I ask the question too late in the evening after a long session and most players are too tired or need to put little ones to bed, so we resolve to figure it out next session.

When it works, the question works like a charm, but that's maybe a third of the time for my group.

Yes, that fits my experience with asking "What do you want to do next time?" IME most players don't want to decide that until they're actually playing the session. So it's best just to prep for anything you think they're likely to do. Eg if you present 3 clear options at the start of the session they will 99% choose one of those. In fact it's around 80% that after investigating option 1 they will seek to investigate option 2, and 60% that they'll even investigate the third, least-preferred option, given enough time and opportunity. But usually it's best to have more stuff happening before then.
Eg in my Loudwater campaign, the PCs have occasionally discussed investigating the Mountain King, but it's clearly low down on their priorities, so never actually happens, other more pressing stuff comes up.

 

[S'mon]

Not sure how useful this advice is, but although "railroad" campaigns cop a lot of flak from the cool kids since 2nd edition now, there's a lot to be said for them! Some gamers just like to be part of a cool story and aren't looking for contrived complexity.

They may want to be guaranteed to be part of a cool story without the effort of being proactive, but I don't think many insist that the story be pre-written? You can run a non-railroad campaign with reactive players; they can bite on what they think is the most obvious plot hook and behave just like they were on a railroad, meanwhile behind the scenes you are actually running a non-linear campaign that reacts and grows according to their choices.

 

[Herobizkit]

Hexcrawl. As seen in West Marches.

There's a town, and it's safe. Citizens live simple and danger-free lives. Outside the town, not too far away, there are Woods. Or Mountains. Or Something. No one in town cares; they're too busy living simple and danger-free lives.

The heroes, on the other hand, are bored of safety. They WANT to know what's Out There In The Wilderness. So they gather a group of people and head out to explore.

Now the "DM's plans" turn into "whatever the players happen to find", and that will depend on "whatever direction the players choose to go". Now the Players are in some kind of control and have to deal with each new location/encounter as they find them, rather than "the DM told us to go there so that's what we do."

I've been watching a group on Twitch.tv play through the original Isle of Dread using something similar to this concept.

 

[pemerton]

To prove to them that you don't mind if they mess up your plans, mess up your own plans--give them hooks/quests/missions that are obviously in conflict and will lead to mutually exclusive resolutions.

<snip>

I think good sandbox settings should strain verisimilitude. They should be loaded with interesting stuff, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense, like a dungeon. Think "adventureland". The PCs are like Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser--even if they start out just wandering around they'll be sure to bump into something interesting. Basically you have to convince the players that they won't be punished with boredom for exploration, like they would be in most games.

This works for me. I think this is good advice for a non-sandbox but non-railroad game too!

 

[saskganesh]

They may want to be guaranteed to be part of a cool story without the effort of being proactive, but I don't think many insist that the story be pre-written? You can run a non-railroad campaign with reactive players; they can bite on what they think is the most obvious plot hook and behave just like they were on a railroad, meanwhile behind the scenes you are actually running a non-linear campaign that reacts and grows according to their choices.

Yeah this, my sandbox is rich with story, story being whatever the players decide to do. And in that context, there's always NPCs with agendas, unfolding current events, and dynamic politics between the powers that be. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

A lot of my prep between sessions is not focussed on the mechanics on plotting the next simple 4 hr mission/adventure (maps, monsters, traps, treasure etc), but just thinking about the various relationships at work in the world.

 

[Weather Report]

Can be due to the edition you have chosen to play.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Can be due to the edition you have chosen to play.

I doubt it. When I was running 4E it was a Mystara sandbox game. Campaign style and player expectations all come from group communication (or lack thereof) rather than system.

Prior experience is important too. If this group of players is unfamilliar with anything but plot-driven railroad play, they may not be aware of how to go about things in a more freeform environment. The players may be, as Red from Shawshank Redemption put it, "Institutionalized".

One thing that might help is asking for each player to provide some personal goals. In thoery the Pcs should pursue those adventures that satisfy their personal goals the most. If they require an external source to provide a mission of some sort then you can have someone important task them with exploring and mapping a wilderness area making note of points of interest and such. That will at least start them on a very long freeform quest that they will have to come up with a plan of their own to complete.

 

[Weather Report]

I doubt it

What with the we must have this Dungeon Tiles/Plastic Crack encounter.

 

[Quickleaf]

Prior experience is important too. If this group of players is unfamilliar with anything but plot-driven railroad play, they may not be aware of how to go about things in a more freeform environment. The players may be, as Red from Shawshank Redemption put it, "Institutionalized".

One thing that might help is asking for each player to provide some personal goals. In thoery the Pcs should pursue those adventures that satisfy their personal goals the most. If they require an external source to provide a mission of some sort then you can have someone important task them with exploring and mapping a wilderness area making note of points of interest and such. That will at least start them on a very long freeform quest that they will have to come up with a plan of their own to complete.

Yes, this is my sense of the group overall. Because everyone is so busy, the players just want to be entertained (by me and by each other), and don't put a lot of energy into their characters' motives/goals, expecting that to come from the DM' story. Really it's about changing expectations.

I would *love* it if my players came to the table with defined motives/quests for their PCs. Usually I have to come up with anything like that because they are so reactive. Maybe I just need to ask for that more directly?


We are meeting up Sunday with different group composition. 2 players dropped cause they're getting ready to have a baby and 1 new player joined, so we'll have 5 players continuing the campaign with the PCs returning to town several weeks after setting out for a dragon's lair.

I am going to use the Rule of Three and present them with 3 options to explore. This will be in the form of a King's Council they sit in upon, and various NPCs citing challenges the kingdom faces.

And I'm going to be very direct in asking for a bit more about what drives their characters. This will be in the form of more casual feasting and celebrating their victory over the dragon and NPCs asking about the heroes.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I would *love* it if my players came to the table with defined motives/quests for their PCs.

This is where some sandbox campaigns fall down. I've been through several failed campaigns, and it's always because the different players want different things.

Which isn't to say they're doomed. My group did a fun long-lasting Warhammer Fantasy 2e campaign which was a railroad at the start but gradually became a player-driven campaign... written by only two players, with everyone else willing to go along for the ride. (The campaign only ended because the DM felt he couldn't challenge high-level Warhammer PCs.)

If one PC picks a quest at a time, and the others are willing to wait their turn, it's no problem, but if one PC wants to go into the mountains and hunt a dragon, and another wants to do into the forests and fight gnolls, you may have a problem.

My own group rarely does much communication between sessions, so DMs find themselves surprised as arguments and grumpiness break out during a session. So when talking to players, be sure to do a lot of this between sessions, so they can all decide on a course of action before a game starts. (Unless you're really good at winging it!)