Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5585670" data-attributes="member: 8835">That would match my imaginary impression of a sandbox.  I don't know about the reality.I've heard sandboxes called Status Quo campaigns.  That gives the impression that not much changes unless the PCs change it or instigate some consequence that changes things.I certainly see that "the end is nigh, unless you stop it" kind of problems as being high fantasy, and likely to strongly encourage player participation unless they want to see the campaign end.As to the OP's problem, here's some hopefully new thoughts.the game's time table has you rushing.  With no game time passing (or able to be passed), there's really no room for side quests or "before we go help him, let's do X."The PCs are nearly level 20.  Nobody should be telling 20th levels what to do.  20th levels should be telling others what to do and making strategy.  Elminster should be ASKING the party what their thoughts on the best strategy is and ASKING them to implement the solution the PARTY came up with.  In fact, it would be more in character for a wise, powerful NPC to let the party derive the solution that he has already thought of.The GM, by way of the NPCs seems to be issuing "go here, do this" directives to the party.  Even in a "linear" adventure, he should be revealing information about the problem (troop forces, captured plans) that the party is deciding how to solve (let's go there, and do that).  I reckon there's a time and place for an NPC to issue an order to a PC, but that should be heavily based on context (a bossy king, whom you expect they'll disobey; a trusted mentor who seldom gives direct orders).This doesn't change the fact that there's a war on, and the kinds of adventures you have will be about the war.  But the approach to how the PCs get the hooks and decide to follow the hooks probably needs to change.</blockquote>

Verification