How to ease players into a sandbox style?

[Quickleaf]

I think the best approach is 'bangs' that require a reaction, but leave the nature of that reaction open. This can help ease the PCs into making decisions.

Yeah, I can always use a "bang" when they get stuck.

Secondly: simple choices, making it clear that the PCs can't do everything. The simplest is the open dungeon with different pathways. Left or right.

Yep, with the caveat that they must be informed and meaningful choices.

The PCs were trying to find a way to a hidden cog in Mechanus, and were traversing a clockwork labyrinth to find it. They'd also been asked by a hierarch modron to rescue some underlings trapped in the labyrinth. When the PCs had the option to take a short-cut to the hidden cog, they took it: the entire clockwork labyrinth began to tilt upside down (the PCs were shielded from this effect), and I described gears clanging and modrons falling over each other. I asked if the group was going through with the short-cut. They were. So the trapped modrons were tossed out of the labyrinth into freefall, presumably to die, and the PCs fast-forwarded to the hidden cog.

A simple choice with clear consequences.

Thirdly: encourage character goals. Don't force them, but reward proactive play with success. If one PC comes up with proactive goals, let him enjoy the spotlight time. If the others want spotlight time too, they can step on up.

So far that's amounted to rewarding thievery Or, at least, misguided reappropriation.

Related to that - I'm having a bit of trouble in one of my sandboxes: I aked the players to provide character goals. Rather than engage with the actually presented setting, several players sent me "big magic item" - it rather looked like rather than go out & look for something, they expect me to create the maguffins and then provide them with a clear path/linear adventure to acquisition of them. I think there's a bit of a trap there; I'm coming to think that asking players for PC goals in a sandbox game may not be such a good idea. I'm wondering how to say 'I want goals that don't depend on me creating particular content for you'.

I've had the same thing happen! Only instead of "big magic item" it was "artifact." I think it's supposed to accommodate the DM's creative input. Heh.

 

[S'mon]

I've had the same thing happen! Only instead of "big magic item" it was "artifact." I think it's supposed to accommodate the DM's creative input. Heh.

Yes, two players in a row sent me 'artifact' goals. One player in this 4e D&D game also sent me a plot, rather than a goal - story-creation, not sandboxing. I don't think I would even have noticed the difference, except that I'm also running a 1e AD&D Gygaxian sandbox online with grognard players, and I can contrast the two. The 1e grognards have goals like 'wealth' and 'acquire political power', and proactively come up with ways to achieve their goals. They also actively poke around in the setting to see what comes up. One of the 4e players who is brand new to RPGs behaves similarly, but the others are tending to come up with metagame plot hooks, not in-character goals.

 

[S'mon]

I see no reason that the GM cannot "kick in the door" and see how the players/PCs react, especially early in the campaign. Ignoring some of the events just means the world changes, evolves, and bards sing about the wusses that bravely ran away...

I tend to start off my sandboxes with a fight.

Larin Karr sandbox: PCs arrive in town - hobgoblins are attacking!
Southlands sandbox: PCs are on the road - bandits are attacking a coach!

However the most successful approach I've seen is not 'start: Fight!' but 'start: 30 minutes of roleplay: Fight!'

In my Yggsburgh campaign, the PCs started at a coaching inn on the way to Yggsburgh, having breakfast and boarding the coach, chatting with the NPC passengers. This helped establish tone & character. Then they set off on the journey, bandits were spotted waiting to attack the coach; the PCs had the coach burst through the mounted highwaymen and there was a fun chase sequence.

 

[S'mon]

This would be worth a read for you -

ars ludi Grand Experiments: West Marches

Worth noting there is that he never asks players what their PC's special snowflake goal is, he tells the players to formulte a goal as a group , based on their knowledge of the setting. I think it's ok to base group goals on character background, but that's different from "Mr GM, please come up with an adventure for me based on what my PC wants".

I need to bear that distinction in mind going forward.

 

[amerigoV]

[MENTION=26651]amerigoV[/MENTION]
It's funny you say that because a large part of how I'm running this sandbox game involves adaptating to what the PCs do or do not do. We're only a couple sessions in and already three plots are developing without the PCs' interference, so that when they return to town (er, Sigil in this case) they'll have some catching up to do.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that "sandbox" means a strictly reactive or passive setting, but that's certainly not how I think of it.

Its more of a perception of how people have portrayed it here. I am certain many people run it as you do (and it should be).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The response thus far have been mainly about changing the sand. With a group of mostly reactive players, I find it more important to think about changing the box. You want options in the sand, preferably a lot of them, though with most of them not pressing and some of them mutually incompatible. You want limits from the box, and this will cut out a great deal of the analysis paralysis in reactive players. Limits are freeing.

It's the 6 year-olds with crayons experiment all over again. Don't go into a 1st grade class and ask them to "make art". Half of them will freak out so much about the medium to use, that they won't even consider the subject matter. And even if you give crayons and paper and say, "Draw something," you'll have analysis paralysis. But on the other hand, you don't give them a single green-yellow crayon, a piece of cardboard torn off a box, and ask them to "draw a picture of their mother, in a realistic style." That one kid on the second row may amaze you, but mostly this will fall flat. What you'd rather do is give them a box of crayons, several sheets of paper, and say something like, "Draw a picture. Make it of your house, your friend, your pet, or something else that you pick." Very few 1st graders will be paralyzed for long with that kind of choice.

Of course, you'll probably want to frame your choices in the sand as hooks or even bangs, and do that mostly in game. It's natural. Framing your limits in the box can be done that way, but with reactive players, I find it useful to frame some of it outside the game. The classic example is a sandbox limited to a single large city. We talk about it usually as something to help out the DM in prep work, but it also serves a useful purpose in framing the choices the players must make:

"We can't travel 2 weeks to the plains of Garbonzo to get the fabled healing plants. So if we need some, we'll have to hire someone to get it for us, buy it from herbalism shop, or break into the tower of the Mad Mage and steal his."

And then if someone on a totally unrelated story offers them some of the plants for a reward, instant hook. It's the limits of the box that makes that work.

 

[Janx]

Know your PCs/players goals. Everybody says that. makes sense.

I try to frame hooks as Opportunities and Problems.

Opportunities are good. They should speak to goals. Opportunities about exploring a dungreon, when the PC's goal is become sherriff is useless. Sure, somebody MIGHT come up with a way to connect the 2. But a better opportunity that the player will realize is street crime he can stop, or an investigation he can help with. Because that can improve his standing with the law and with the people who see him as a law enforcer.

Problems are things a person has to deal with. They tend not to be optional. In the sense of, you've been shot. That's a problem, because if you don't deal with it, you're dead. Somebody else's problems are more like an Opportunity. The bandits attack example is a Problem, because it instigates a reaction from the PCs. They have to deal with it.

Use problems sparingly. Generally, problems happen as a consequence, complication or as instigation because the players are being totally boring.

Like CJ said, prevent analysis paralysis by not having too many choices.

I think with careful choice crafting, you can make 3 choices the party is interested in, rather than 100 that the party has no preference for.

Another point to ponder, compare sandbox with real life.

In real life, you technically have zillions of choices. But very few of them are Choices.

If you have a job, you will probably go to work, barring some exception. You will probably do you assigned tasks. If you have any leeway, it will be in how you solve your assigned tasks. The person has a main goal of stay employed and finish the tasks.

If you don't have a job, you will either look for work or continue to sit around BSing with friends and playing xbox.

Consider that the latter sounds suspiciously like a new D&D party in a sandbox.

What gets a slacker off the couch?
the house is on fire
a new Star Wars movie just came out
Some lucrative opportunity that sounds easy just came up

 

[nedjer]

Maybe NPCs and news/ rumours serving-up choices with fairly obvious possibilities? E.g. arrive in town to talk of invasion, plus an invitation from an NPC who's off to colonise a newly discovered continent plus fears about a series of murders down the docks.

Quoting myself - slightly scary.

I'm not suggesting a jobs listing. Instead asking the players if they prefer to prepare for war and all that comes with it, or would rather head off to explore strange lands and cultures, or fancy investigative gameplay. As the PCs get further into each option the GM hopefully unwraps the gameplay within the limited open-ended options, e.g. the NPC outlines that colonists are going to have to acquire resources, clear territory, make allies and build defences.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes, two players in a row sent me 'artifact' goals. One player in this 4e D&D game also sent me a plot, rather than a goal - story-creation, not sandboxing. I don't think I would even have noticed the difference, except that I'm also running a 1e AD&D Gygaxian sandbox online with grognard players, and I can contrast the two. The 1e grognards have goals like 'wealth' and 'acquire political power', and proactively come up with ways to achieve their goals. They also actively poke around in the setting to see what comes up. One of the 4e players who is brand new to RPGs behaves similarly, but the others are tending to come up with metagame plot hooks, not in-character goals.

That's a good observaition. I never asked specifically for goals, and thought I'd tease them out of the character backgrounds that were provided to me. But, the backgrounds were the opposite of goal-focused (for the most part). There's nothing wrong with that, but it does show a group's leaning toward "adventure path" play.

The response thus far have been mainly about changing the sand. With a group of mostly reactive players, I find it more important to think about changing the box. You want options in the sand, preferably a lot of them, though with most of them not pressing and some of them mutually incompatible. You want limits from the box, and this will cut out a great deal of the analysis paralysis in reactive players. Limits are freeing.

See, that's what I *thought* I was doing. And for little things like the example of the Clockwork Labyrinth above it worked. However when it comes to larger goals about which direction to steer the adventure, that's when the paralysis sets in. Here's an example that illustrates this:

The PCs just defeated a cranium rat hive mind, and ended the session in the sewers; they were down there to (a) figure out why the cranium rats had conspires to assassinate an NPC, and (b) access a portal. In between sessions I sent out an email asking the group for their next direction, presenting several options: "You could go thru the portal to the clockwork plane of Mechanus in pursuit of the Hollow Woman who purportedly masterminded the assassination attempt? Alternately you could go thru the portal to the wild Beastlands to find the blood magic ritual the NPC is supposed to be pursuing? You could return to NPC and run what you've learned by her? Or you could explore the fair sewers some more?

What followed were several emails reflecting the party wanted to go every which way (or didn't have an opinion). Then we met up and it took a good hour to arrive at a goal, with the responses I described in my OP.

In short, I totally agree about limiting options being freeing, but there seems to be something more to it than just number of options.

Of course, you'll probably want to frame your choices in the sand as hooks or even bangs, and do that mostly in game. It's natural. Framing your limits in the box can be done that way, but with reactive players, I find it useful to frame some of it outside the game. The classic example is a sandbox limited to a single large city. We talk about it usually as something to help out the DM in prep work, but it also serves a useful purpose in framing the choices the players must make:

"We can't travel 2 weeks to the plains of Garbonzo to get the fabled healing plants. So if we need some, we'll have to hire someone to get it for us, buy it from herbalism shop, or break into the tower of the Mad Mage and steal his."

Hmm, could you explain framing the limits of a box more? That example you gave sounds un-heroic and definitely not what I'd want in a Planescape game where a lot of the fun is exploring. But it sounds like the kernel of a good idea I might be able to adapt.

Know your PCs/players goals. Everybody says that. makes sense.

I try to frame hooks as Opportunities and Problems.

Maybe I'm not following you here, but how does this approach help with easing a group of "adventure path" players into a more "sandbox" style of play

Use problems sparingly. Generally, problems happen as a consequence, complication or as instigation because the players are being totally boring.

Heh. Glad to see I'm not the only one who had that urge. When the players go into their analysis paralysis mode I need to step away from the table to resist the urge to throw a "kick in the door" encounter at them.

 

[S'mon]

See, that's what I *thought* I was doing. And for little things like the example of the Clockwork Labyrinth above it worked. However when it comes to larger goals about which direction to steer the adventure, that's when the paralysis sets in. Here's an example that illustrates this:

The PCs just defeated a cranium rat hive mind, and ended the session in the sewers; they were down there to (a) figure out why the cranium rats had conspires to assassinate an NPC, and (b) access a portal. In between sessions I sent out an email asking the group for their next direction, presenting several options: "You could go thru the portal to the clockwork plane of Mechanus in pursuit of the Hollow Woman who purportedly masterminded the assassination attempt? Alternately you could go thru the portal to the wild Beastlands to find the blood magic ritual the NPC is supposed to be pursuing? You could return to NPC and run what you've learned by her? Or you could explore the fair sewers some more?

What followed were several emails reflecting the party wanted to go every which way (or didn't have an opinion). Then we met up and it took a good hour to arrive at a goal, with the responses I described in my OP.

Would half those options even have occurred to them, if you hadn't emailed them? Perhaps if you had not presented all those options as viable, they would have gone with whatever 'obvious choice' they thought was 'expected' of them.