Guiding players to more sandbox-y play?

[dd.stevenson]

I have a fairly robust game world with lots of encounter possibilities, and I also have an overarching story involving an invasion of the PCs' kingdom by a magocracy. I have divided the story into separate adventures that are self-contained, can be pursued in whatever order the players like, can be approached in multiple ways, and each have multiple end states and can influence each other.

IOW I like a fairly involved complex game world, but my players have trouble keeping up because they have more casual attitudes toward the game & because they've been "institutionalized" to follow the rails.

Following the rails may not be a problem *for them*, but it is a problem *for me*. As a DM I put work into a game because I want to see players engaging with the setting and NPCs, and when I don't see that I feel frustrated. Why should I put work into a game if I'm not getting met halfway? The answer of course is: Because I love D&D, but I need more than that to stay happy DMing this group.

QL, I'm not going to lie: if you pitched a 3e/4e game like this to me, I would totally be down to play, but I wouldn't much care about investing in the high level direction any more than your players seem to be. What difference does it make which order they take the adventures in? What payoff do they see for getting involved in the high level planning? How do I know whether I'm stepping on your plans if I put effort into the high level direction of the adventure?

 

[pemerton]

Yes, player driven is what I would like.

<snip>

When it comes to the local scale, within the context of an adventure I explicitly introduce, they enjoy getting strategic and are good at coming up with creative ideas.

It's at the larger scale, choosing between different adventures, deciding on a broad course of action, or generating quests of their own that they forget critical information, suffer analysis paralysis, or fall silent and wait for me to give them some guidance.

<snip>

I like a fairly involved complex game world, but my players have trouble keeping up because they have more casual attitudes toward the game & because they've been "institutionalized" to follow the rails.

Following the rails may not be a problem *for them*, but it is a problem *for me*. As a DM I put work into a game because I want to see players engaging with the setting and NPCs, and when I don't see that I feel frustrated.

I think (but am not certain) that you're treating "sandbox" and "railroad" as two ends of a spectrum. If you are, I think that can be too limiting, and make it harder to see a way out of your problem.

I'll try to explain - to the extent that the explanation is redundant or obvious, I apologise.

I'll start with an example from my own game. The PCs were busting up a lair of goblin slavers (The Chamber of Eyes in H2). In the lair were some duergar slave traders. Per the module, the duergar attack when the PCs enter their room. I ignored that particular bit of GM advice - when the PCs entered the duergar's room to take a breather (short rest) from fighting goblins, I started with a standoff and then had the duergar enter tentative negotiations with the PCs. Resolved as a skill challenge, it ended up that the PCs first learned that the duergar had purchased slaves from the goblins, and then agreed to ransom those slaves for a certain amount of gp from a neutral city in a month's time.

Generalising a bit from the example: the adventure "came to the PCs", insofar as they encountered the duergar during a mission, but the resolution was driven by the players, and at the start of the encounter neither I nor them was expecting the upshot to be a ransom contract. And the PCs also then got a reason to travel to a new part of the campaign world (the neutral city).

If you present your players with these sorts of encounters, where the options for resolution are open-ended, but the ingame stakes (rescuing prisoners, averting war, stopping the cult, etc) are high enough that the players will engage, what happens? Do they roleplay their PCs and make choices and bargain for things? Or do they sit there waiting for you to feed them the script?

If the latter, then maybe there's no hope for this particular group. But if the former, then is that a way that you can drive them to engage the fiction a bit more, and see a bit more of the gameworld, but without them having to initiate the adventure by talking to non-antagonistic NPCs, picking up rumours, etc. (Which is what I see as the core of the sandbox.)

 

[Quickleaf]

QL, I'm not going to lie: if you pitched a 3e/4e game like this to me, I would totally be down to play, but I wouldn't much care about investing in the high level direction any more than your players seem to be. What difference does it make which order they take the adventures in? What payoff do they see for getting involved in the high level planning? How do I know whether I'm stepping on your plans if I put effort into the high level direction of the adventure?

The order the pursue adventures in (or whether they pursue certain aventures) matters because the game has a living timeline. Some adventures will be resolved or morph as the bad guy's plan advances without interruption, some NPCs carry over between adventures, etc. For example if the PCs don't pursue 'Beast of Bechauex' by Spring then the magocracy can invade the kingdom overland via the freehold lands of Bechaeux.

The payoff they get from "high-level planning" is greater power over the story and the satisfaction that brings, as well as really feeling like movers & shakers (ie. not just powerful in terms of personal ability but also reputation, followers, etc). It also could open up some really cool avenues of attack against their enemies.

There is no "stepping on my plans" realistically, that's the point. I mean, unless they were like "screw all this, we retire to become beer-makers or travel overseas just for the hell of it." Yes, I've strongly framed a conflict and I have a rough events timeline, but there is no plan on my part beyond that. Does that make sense?

I think (but am not certain) that you're treating "sandbox" and "railroad" as two ends of a spectrum. If you are, I think that can be too limiting, and make it harder to see a way out of your problem.

I'll try to explain - to the extent that the explanation is redundant or obvious, I apologise.

I'll start with an example from my own game. The PCs were busting up a lair of goblin slavers (The Chamber of Eyes in H2). In the lair were some duergar slave traders. Per the module, the duergar attack when the PCs enter their room. I ignored that particular bit of GM advice - when the PCs entered the duergar's room to take a breather (short rest) from fighting goblins, I started with a standoff and then had the duergar enter tentative negotiations with the PCs. Resolved as a skill challenge, it ended up that the PCs first learned that the duergar had purchased slaves from the goblins, and then agreed to ransom those slaves for a certain amount of gp from a neutral city in a month's time.

Generalising a bit from the example: the adventure "came to the PCs", insofar as they encountered the duergar during a mission, but the resolution was driven by the players, and at the start of the encounter neither I nor them was expecting the upshot to be a ransom contract. And the PCs also then got a reason to travel to a new part of the campaign world (the neutral city).

If you present your players with these sorts of encounters, where the options for resolution are open-ended, but the ingame stakes (rescuing prisoners, averting war, stopping the cult, etc) are high enough that the players will engage, what happens? Do they roleplay their PCs and make choices and bargain for things? Or do they sit there waiting for you to feed them the script?

If the latter, then maybe there's no hope for this particular group. But if the former, then is that a way that you can drive them to engage the fiction a bit more, and see a bit more of the gameworld, but without them having to initiate the adventure by talking to non-antagonistic NPCs, picking up rumours, etc. (Which is what I see as the core of the sandbox.)

Yes when I present open-ended encounters, they will engage. But it's not the encounter-scale I'm referring to, it's the campaign-scale. When I give them their motivation and frame the encounter/dungeon hard, they have no problem. It's when I ask (directly or indirectly) "what's your motivation?" or present multiple quest choices or challenge them to engage at the campaign-scale that they stumble.

And that's what I would like to shift to make the game more enjoyable for me, because right now it feels like I'm the primary mover and shaker as DM because no one else cares.

 

[pemerton]

It's when I ask (directly or indirectly) "what's your motivation?" or present multiple quest choices or challenge them to engage at the campaign-scale that they stumble.

And that's what I would like to shift to make the game more enjoyable for me, because right now it feels like I'm the primary mover and shaker as DM because no one else cares.

What would happen if you asked them to make a list of their outstanding goals/enemies/opportunities?

Last time my players did that - a few sessions ago - there were around 10 or so things on the list, and they then narrowed down their options in terms of (i) what was immediately feasible, and (ii) what did they want to prioritise? They had a lot of trouble over 2 sessions agreeing on (ii) and in the end I made them dice for it!

What would happen if you asked your group to do this sort of task in your next session? Are there outstanding matters from past encounters/friends/enemies that they might put on a "work in progress" list?

 

[Quickleaf]

What would happen if you asked them to make a list of their outstanding goals/enemies/opportunities?

Last time my players did that - a few sessions ago - there were around 10 or so things on the list, and they then narrowed down their options in terms of (i) what was immediately feasible, and (ii) what did they want to prioritise? They had a lot of trouble over 2 sessions agreeing on (ii) and in the end I made them dice for it!

What would happen if you asked your group to do this sort of task in your next session? Are there outstanding matters from past encounters/friends/enemies that they might put on a "work in progress" list?

See, if I did that for my group, first of all I would be going against their general resistance to bookkeeping. The only note-takers in the group are a couple with a baby, so usually nothing gets written down on their end besides what's on their character sheets. I mean, there's no harm in me suggesting it, but generally with this group if I want something in writing I have to do it myself For example, out of 16 adventure logs, one of the players wrote one, I wrote the rest. I put together quest cards for them. Getting a player to do a good recap at the start of a session is like pulling teeth. Recurring names are routinely forgotten. Etc.

 

[pemerton]

See, if I did that for my group, first of all I would be going against their general resistance to bookkeeping.

My group are fairly ordinary at book-keeping too, but their memories aren't too bad. They put together their list from memory. They had come to the resolution of their immediate mission (defeating the drow vampire in P2) and one of the players initiated the stocktake to help make a decision as to what to do next.

 

[Quickleaf]

My group are fairly ordinary at book-keeping too, but their memories aren't too bad. They put together their list from memory. They had come to the resolution of their immediate mission (defeating the drow vampire in P2) and one of the players initiated the stocktake to help make a decision as to what to do next.

Hazarding a guess, it may have worked for your players because one of them generated the idea. I've noticed a "in one ear and out the other" sort of mentality among some players towards what the DM says. Maybe it's from being tired after listening to the boss/clients, or maybe years of boxed text indoctrination

 

[pemerton]

maybe years of boxed text indoctrination

Boxed text - a menace to good RPGing!

I always get a smile from the players when I make a show of reading them some boxed text.

 

[S'mon]

Yes when I present open-ended encounters, they will engage. But it's not the encounter-scale I'm referring to, it's the campaign-scale. When I give them their motivation and frame the encounter/dungeon hard, they have no problem. It's when I ask (directly or indirectly) "what's your motivation?" or present multiple quest choices or challenge them to engage at the campaign-scale that they stumble.

And that's what I would like to shift to make the game more enjoyable for me, because right now it feels like I'm the primary mover and shaker as DM because no one else cares.

It seems like your campaign as designed is a poor match with the group you have.
I'd suggest simplify options until it's simple enough for them to handle. For instance at
campaign level you can suggest 2 options "You might want to do X, or Y? What do you think?"

If they're totally passive they may not even be able to decide between X or Y, but usually in a group there's at least one player who can do that.

 

[S'mon]

Hazarding a guess, it may have worked for your players because one of them generated the idea.

Do listen out for ideas the players generate, and run with them.

I've found that "What do you want?" never seems to work, all I get is "I want a pony" type answers, like 4e Wish Lists. Usually "What do you do now?" works ok, esp if you give them 2-3 options and leave it open for them to do something else. If they say "nothing" then advance the timeline and hit them with an event.