Guiding players to more sandbox-y play?

[dd.stevenson]

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.

So I hope I don't sound argumentative or dismissive, but I really don't see anything here that would justify me investing a whole lot of time/energy as a player in your campaign. I could (1) invest a lot of time and energy and maybe not run afoul of your plans and mabye not get shot down by one of the other players or (2) I could invest practically nothing in your campaign and get almost the same play experience except that I'd have to settle for being less invested, and maybe Bechauex would be overrun with goblins.

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?

Most every DM says something like this. IME, most DMs are a lot less flexible than they claim.

Not questioning you per se, just pointing out that there's a general bias of GMs to think of themselves as being more flexible than they really are.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

If we are talking about tailoring the campaign to the group, I can think of 2 campaign modes that would be perfect:

(1) Dungeon Crawl: No real story or character background beyond "kill monsters, loot treasure", with a hearty dose of humor.

(2) Adventure-a-Week: Railroad with barest connection between sessions, so NPC names or plot points don't need to be remembered.

We did dungeon crawl for 12 sessions and it was a blast, but it reached its natural conclusion and was beginning to get stale. Doing an adventure-a-week means I would be limited to 2-4 encounter/scene adventures which would need to be self-contained and isolated from other adventures. It's definitely not my preference, but it is something I will ask the group: do they want a full-blooded campaign or would they prefer an adventure-a-week style?

Anyhow, I am constantly doing "well, you could do X or Y, what do you think?" At first I was hesitant because it felt hand-holdy and leading, but once I realized how at a loss they were I started doing it. Sure it can help, but it seems like training wheels to me...it feels like its me playing with myself at that point...eventually I'd like them move beyond that.

Again, if possible. It may be something that can't be changed. I dunno. That's what this thread is for.

 

[Quickleaf]

So I hope I don't sound argumentative or dismissive, but I really don't see anything here that would justify me investing a whole lot of time/energy as a player in your campaign. I could (1) invest a lot of time and energy and maybe not run afoul of your plans and mabye not get shot down by one of the other players or (2) I could invest practically nothing in your campaign and get almost the same play experience except that I'd have to settle for being less invested, and maybe Bechauex would be overrun with goblins.

So players should never invest energy in campaigns period, is that what you're saying? I dunno, that's a very negative view of the collaborative nature of D&D; it's not about the supremacy of my one idea, it's about working with the group of players and hatching ideas together. And you keep saying "the DM's plans" like it's some concrete thing... I may frame a scene at the start of a session, but I don't have some master plan like you're imagining. Not sure how else to convey that.

That's the point though, experiencing consequences (positively or negative) to your PC's actions is part of the fun of role-playing. I guess if you've never been invested in a campaign, you might assume the play experience is the same, but IME it is much more engaging. I can agree to disagree with you because that is an individual preference thing.

Most every DM says something like this. IME, most DMs are a lot less flexible than they claim.

Not questioning you per se, just pointing out that there's a general bias of GMs to think of themselves as being more flexible than they really are.

Yes, I've experienced that exact phenomenon, and I've also experienced awesome flexible DMs. So I'm well aware of the bias. Fortunately, I am pretty good on my feet and have prepped to improvise, so with a little thought (and some luck) I can handle pretty much anything they throw at me.

They've done some wacky stuff already - in the context of the encounter/dungeon-scale - that I certainly wasn't prepared for. Like "befriending" a kobold and making him the new kobold king. Or breaking several dream gems which harmed the royal family.

Anyhow, yeah I'm aware of the bias. What more can I say?

 

[dd.stevenson]

So players should never invest energy in campaigns period, is that what you're saying? I dunno, that's a very negative view of the collaborative nature of D&D; it's not about the supremacy of my one idea, it's about working with the group of players and hatching ideas together. And you keep saying "the DM's plans" like it's some concrete thing... I may frame a scene at the start of a session, but I don't have some master plan like you're imagining. Not sure how else to convey that.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

A certain segment of D&D players don't find investment in this type of campaign worth while. I'm giving voice to that segment, since (offhandedly) your description of the campaign sort of triggered my passive player instincts. Maybe you find this helpful; or perhaps you don't. Either way, I never said anything about what players should never do.

I really want to emphasize that my intent is constructive, not argumentative; unfortunately I'm not really a master of tone when it comes to fast forum posts.

That's the point though, experiencing consequences (positively or negative) to your PC's actions is part of the fun of role-playing. I guess if you've never been invested in a campaign, you might assume the play experience is the same, but IME it is much more engaging. I can agree to disagree with you because that is an individual preference thing.

I've been involved with this kind of campaign both as a DM and as a player, and both as an invested and uninvested player. If that helps

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Sometimes when I see arguments develop on threads about approaches to DMing I am reminded of the quote often attributed to Bismarck, ""Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made."

I sometimes think our DMing techniques are like that. Once you see them for what they are, or see them recounted on the internet rather than experience them for yourself, they actually don't look that good.

But that doesn't mean they don't work well at the table, just as it is possible to enjoy eating a sausage (except here in the Philippines when most of them have a thick red exterior that leaches red colouring into the "meat": that simply cannot be good for you).

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

You may just have a whole group of passive casual players. These are players who are happy to show up and play but give zero thought to what is actually happening because, for them, the night's entertainment is functionally no different than playing a board game or rummy. A few of these types mixed into a group with more engaged players is a bit easier to deal with because the motivated ones will take the lead and the casuals will just go along for the ride.

If you have a whole group that is just along for the ride you need to:

A- get a new group of more engaged players

or

B- manage expectations with this group.


Option B requires that you adjust what you expect from your players to more realistically match what you are going to get. If you know from experience that your players are not going to invest in the campaign, and are going to just show up each session, roll some dice, and look to you to provide all the adventure context, then don't waste creative energy on sandbox elements that will go unnoticed and unused. If running self contained low campaign context adventures for them sucks the will to DM out of you then consider option A.

You can't force people to share your level of passion for a hobby. The best you an do is find those that do.

 

[Quickleaf]

I see, so the idea is that it's innate to some players to just be more passive, "go along for the ride" types. I suppose I was thinking of it as a player maturation spectrum where, as new players we begin passive and looking for the railroad, and then we mature and become more interested in the sandbox. But maybe you guys are right, these are just fundamentally different mindsets about the game.

I'd say 2 of the players are more passive, for sure.
1 is somewhere inbetween being passive and active.
1 would be active, but is too distracted with his baby to go there.
1 would be active, but can't get anyone else in the group to engage that way.

So, I guess the take-aways are...

• Ask directly what style of game the players want: episodic railroad or sandboxy campaign. Then deliver that to them.
• Try providing 2-3 adventure options and see what happens.
• But keep in mind that many players are biased against DM claims of "freedom" in their campaigns.
• And bear in mind these are fundamental differences between players, which probably will not change.

Does that about cover it?

 

[amerigoV]

This worked really well in a city campaign. The group did a number of shorter adventures that all have loose ends. Gather up those loose ends and think about a story arc behind all of them. Then present them as a 5x5 grid (the grid may not be filled out). Also ask what the players want to do to expand the grid as well.

This gives a tool that both the players and GM can use. The players can decide to push on one of the threads that interest them. If the player hit a lull or the GM wants to make the world dynamic, they can trigger one of the other threads.

Here is a link to the guy that we took the idea from

5x5 Method

Here is an example of my 50 Fathoms campaign.
50 Fathoms Example

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

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.

Yeah, and open-ened questions like "What do you want?" can make some players think you're not prepared and you're desperate for ideas.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I suppose I was thinking of it as a player maturation spectrum where, as new players we begin passive and looking for the railroad, and then we mature and become more interested in the sandbox.

If anything, I've seen the opposite. New, young players are the ones who want to run around and make their own goals ("I kill the king!" "Wait, what?"), and mature, older gamers grow weary of taking initiative and are more willing to sit back and do whatever the DM wants.