How to ease players into a sandbox style?

[S'mon]

For my players "no, nobody is selling farm right now", "no, you don't find excelent horse for breeding", "no, tavern is not hiring", "no, there aren't any nobles hanging there" etc. These things seem simple enough but knowing my people they lead to lot of boring gaming.

The PC who wants to be a jeweler or farmer is a warning sign - there's only so many times goblins can raid the farm or thugs threaten the store. OTOH a tavern is a good source of plots and adventures (admittedly these can be rejected by Turtle players), while social climbing via connections to the noble patrons works great IME - PCs in my Yggsburgh game are doing the latter. They can be sent on adventurous missions by their noble patron, deal with politics, intrigue, romance, and Three Musketeers type swashbuckling.

Edit: My preferred approach is Yes-Yes-Yes, not No-No-No, but if a PC doesn't want to adventure they are no longer adventurers, they are retired and become NPCs. The player is told they can make a new PC adventurer if they want.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

So true S'mon one of my players (and dm also) is major turtle who wants us to turtle too when he is dm and run from dangerous things. I nowdays demand him to run always modules because his own adventures are not adventures, they are almost happen but then it's too "dangerous" so run and build keep and wait orc army to attack, which never actually happens (this was plot of one of his games we quit after prepering and prepering for attack for 4 sessions and then army of orcs was so big, we should run instead).

And he still feels insulted when his character refuded to take adventure without "reason" and investions npc:s motivations when they were very clear just to make sure (aka not go) and I told you "your character is adventurer, right he is supposed to do that stuff, according to his backgroud even". He also has tendarcy wanting to play paladins who act paranoid and LE in actual game, which he also denies. Not a bad person, not even always bad roleplaying, but he has some "security-issues" and if given into them will ruin any adventure. So "do whatever you like games" are out of question.

Thanks for tip, next time he pulls that crap, I will let them and turn him into Npc.

It's not always bad for adventures having "mundane" business. Hey in very beginning days of D&D my brother's character started to run inn. And got fat during slow times, got teased about it by his adventuring mates. Sometimes hired low level adventures to do stuff for him and got with his party back into adventuring life and let hirelings run the inn when something relevant was happening.

It can be fun, but inns are way better than farms. Hey it's cool for players to have home base they can set some collected monster heads on walls and exotic weapons. If this base of operations however turns into exorcise of turtling or exorcise of some facebook farming and horseraising game (seen this happen many times too with certain player).

This player used to play with some nasty old AD&D/Warhammer group where death was common and any little mistake was quicly paid with reaper visiting or worse (=undeath or chaosspawnhood demending on a game). I think this is where he got his turtling habbits. But I've played with same group without such issues.

 

[Quickleaf]

Here're some suggestions that work for me.

Good read, thanks. I like the part about including the PCs in designing the setting during play, it gave me a great idea about something I can do unique to the Planescape setting.

"There are bleak hills to the east, a fetid swamp to the south, and a dirt track leads north into scrubby woodland".

90% of players will follow the track IME, unless they've heard a rumour of treasure in the swamp.

Heh. You know, barring extenuating circumstances, I'd have to agree. Now put "haunted" in front of woodland instead of "scrubby" and that % might drop some...But still I wonder why that is?

I disagree - the players were told the choices by email PRIOR to their round-table discussion. That's different from a mediator summing up a discussion at-table in order to help the group make a final decision.

I think that the medium (e-mail) had something to do with it. But there I was trying to prep for next session* and I realized the PCs could go in 4 or 5 different directions, and they hadn't settled on anything cause the game ran late and we had to scoot quick after game. Therein lies the dilemma. After a game session winds down, usually it's late and no one wants to commit to a course of action (which could very well change at the start of next game). Yet setting a new course at the start of a session doesn't give me prep* time.

So when *do* I get to know the PCs moves in advance or do I? That does sound a little weird in reference to a sandbox, and I'm not referring to small decisions, I'm referring to the "we go to the Beastlands or Mechanus / scrubby woodlands or fetid swamp" kind of decisions.

* By "prep" I am referring largely to the kind of prep work you need to do before beginning a sandbox campaign. This is (a) a new group & new campaign, (b) conversion of 2e setting to 4e, and (c) I jumped in without having all this prep done before hand. So there's a lot of prep to do.

The mediator should only be giving options the group has already put forward as viable, not adding his own opinions. That's why I don't like chairing discussions, I don't get to expound my own brilliant ideas.

Well, there *are* plenty of chairs who don't follow that advice, but you wouldn't want to be one of those kind

 

[S'mon]

* By "prep" I am referring largely to the kind of prep work you need to do before beginning a sandbox campaign. This is (a) a new group & new campaign, (b) conversion of 2e setting to 4e, and (c) I jumped in without having all this prep done before hand. So there's a lot of prep to do.

Aye, prep load & difficulty of improvisation is definitely a problem with sandboxing 4e, or 3e. Several times with my 4e Wilderlands sandbox I've been: "Um... I didn't know you were going to go to that dot on the map, as opposed to the three options I *did* prep..." worse case I've had to break 30 minutes early, which can mean only 2 hours rather than 2.5 hours in our Monday evening game. Not great.

 

[Quickleaf]

Aye, prep load & difficulty of improvisation is definitely a problem with sandboxing 4e, or 3e. Several times with my 4e Wilderlands sandbox I've been: "Um... I didn't know you were going to go to that dot on the map, as opposed to the three options I *did* prep..." worse case I've had to break 30 minutes early, which can mean only 2 hours rather than 2.5 hours in our Monday evening game. Not great.

Yeah, I think it would work fine with something like the Neverwinter or Gloomwrought book, or working within the default setting of 4e. Doing your own setting or a conversion is difficult.

In my case, it's Planescape, so there's tons of campaign setting resources, lots of NPCs and adventure sites, etc. However, when it comes to distilling all that into something I can translate to 4e , reference quickly, and communicate clearly at the table, there's quite a bit of work involved.

I've been told to reskin monsters, but with all of the weird monsters in Planescape, there often isn't an equivalent. And there's more than monsters: planar hazards and skill challenges often have no parallel. Often there's not even something close.
When I do reskin monsters I am trying to keep an eye toward "random encounters" that don't take long to run. It's been trial and error, but with the help of [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] 's Guide to Anti-Grind several other posts/blogs, and plenty of ignoring the rules, I've been getting better.

I'm not sure about your experiences sand-boxing, but I think recycling stuff I make will be a life-saver.

 

[howandwhy99]

Zelda, I hear ya. What I do is put in the explanation of the rules up front that this is a role playing game where your Class is your primary role. What that means is the scope of the game they are equipped for and gain XP for exploring is based on Class. There's "all about combat and the military", "all about magic and the workings of the multiverse", "all about clericism, social relations, and the divine", and "all about thieving and crime". Sure, there exist some subclasses, but those are primarily covered by the core four.

This is not to say that there aren't other bits that are touched on, but those are the focuses of the game. If they want to become professional merchants, then they're opting for an NPC class. That's possible under the custom class rules, but it should be explained that what comes along with Merchant class training isn't suited well to what's commonly known as adventuring, and D&D is pretty much an adventuring game. That is, of course, unless you are "all about sailing the wild accountancy"

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Heh, I play D&D for dungeons and dragons, and maybe spaceship and aliens, and horrors men should not know. I like playing D&D as adventure game. I have tried to explain this idea to my scary-pants player, but he just doesn't think he is doing it. He is in denial, as he is about his evil, paranoid paladins. Evil mostly coming from antisocial turtling paranoia. And he not always that bad, but sometimes. Actually howandwhy, I have started to create pre-made characters for that group with some room to fill. I take requests etc, but I am not going to let him make another turtle (small damage/lot of AC/lot of HP/good saves/improved trips/disarm path), who spends many round in combat in full defence.

And this is when he actually is forced to go on adventure by peer preasure, and complain follows. He is guy who don't do random dungeons in wow/star wars because "group might be bad, and might roll for my stuff". Aargh. Luckily he is only in my another group and once in a blue moon, he actually concentrates on fun stuff.

My another group might actually be at times "sandbox"-like. Not sure. DM is really imprvising type. He coms up with some theme or we do and asks if he is interested. Then we make characters and ask approval or sometimes he suggest a character and we follow it. This is really on general level, like world could be Golarion, ok, it could be adventures in Osirian lands, ok I make arcane char on some personal quest (or revenge), I do some weaponmaster who wants to became greatest in land, I make this lara croft-like tombraider hunting relics and riches.

Then we settle if we know each other. If not we meet in some dungeon/lost city and save each others asses to save our own.
DM makes adventure up as we go. However he always invents some overreaching plot/world event with twists which we more or less get involted in. He doesn't usually know beforehand how/why we get involted or when. There might be some blood-line connections and some other evil stuff he comes up with when we discuss our characters. He also very often manages to corrupt and npc:fy long surviving characters.
It's victory if we make it to 20th level before that happens. Unless TPK or TPC (total party corruption) happens our games often continue to around 22-28, most typical final level 24.

Sometimes we start with corrution scene like "happy owners of evil artifact" or other against the clock solution finding. There is no pre-set right ways to go about it, it kinda depends coming up with some cool and working-souding plan." You can ask around npc:s naturally but some of them lie or pretend to know but don't.

I don't think we get lot of railroad, though some consiquencs of our actions might be seen that way. But really, sometimes it might be healthy to think before acting. I really like those games. Too bad dm is too busy with his work to run games that often.

I think it's around 10% plot/90 % do what you like. Sometimes our old characters are villains for new ones. Well, if we continue timeline in same universe.

He sometimes starts to run adventure path, but they play really differantly as written. And if we depart too far from plot he uses stuff in them but changes it when he wants to. We really liked Runelords first and second module, though because of some abyssal luck in first module our group acted pretty messed up the next one, Third went about so, after that our plot and storyline plot had diverted to some stealable elements.
I read the adventures afterward.

Shacled city was maybe best module, and characters pretty much walked the path. Well be skipped few dungeons here and there and did some extra other ones. I think it was so smooth because it was so centered around the city and chars had families there. And main focus for characters was to help their home city and fight the evil no-one else was fighting. Travel modules don't so well if dm doesnt' care to keep you on reins. Meaning if modele presumes wrongly what players choose to do. Travel causes story to split. LIke with Crimson throne, where leaving city is hard to justify even to me, since I dm adventure paths less freely. Many adventure paths do annoying location changes. After really creating situation which makes character rather unwilling to leave in-game. And often I do feel adventure paths should be written by same person. I don't like it, like after 5th adventure of Council of Thieves 6th is written by some dude who tells he dislikes high-level-game and doesn't really play it. LIke what, and this guy writes the highest lv module of series with almost no-high level content. When 5 modules before have trained players to expect tough combat encounters (ok though 5 was also lame compared to 4 before, well the vampire place Walcourt was).

I think I really prefer to play with 90 % freedon 10 % plot. Theme often equaling also main plot. And lot of events relating to something interested. And even if something is out of blue initially I want there to be continiuty if I get intersted in some event. Because isn't it kinda point of free world to keep it interesting. And hit pc:s with something "interesting" if game is getting slow. I don't want to play games with no plot/theme. Though I've always wanted since I read it in en-world years ago game like "world was just created, then gods just created you, what you want to do?" Awesome.
I mean it would be with my favourite group. Too bad work is so busy.

Anyhow, maybe when people mention word "sandbox" I think some Oblivion clone game. Where freedom mostly means you are going to die if you go to western forest because giant rats are going to eat you alive. And there are only some "areas" for your ability that are available. I think dm:s like to run more mundena games this way, and D&D is not great system for that. I mean those gritty games. And I hate "peasants with sticks trying to be adventurers". I prefer to play heroes. And I want something to be happening in the world that creates need for heroes. Without it people just start to do stupid crap. And I have played such games and they always ended "after a lot humilation and misery we die some pointless death" or "after playing game A this time around pc:s go evil and kill everybody until they are killed by something more tough or games just dies". I don't think without story there is really good rpg. And I know many of you can do these kinda games cool ways. IMO it's not enough world "feels living", pc:s must also feel special people.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

double post

 

[howandwhy99]

Anyhow, maybe when people mention word "sandbox" I think some Oblivion clone game. Where freedom mostly means you are going to die if you go to western forest because giant rats are going to eat you alive. And there are only some "areas" for your ability that are available. I think dm:s like to run more mundane games this way, and D&D is not great system for that. I mean those gritty games. And I hate "peasants with sticks trying to be adventurers". I prefer to play heroes. And I want something to be happening in the world that creates need for heroes. Without it people just start to do stupid crap. And I have played such games and they always ended "after a lot humiliation and misery we die some pointless death" or "after playing game A this time around pc:s go evil and kill everybody until they are killed by something more tough or games just dies". I don't think without story there is really good rpg. And I know many of you can do these kinda games cool ways. IMO it's not enough world "feels living", pc:s must also feel special people.

Your turtling player may simply want another game. That game may even be so substantially different from what everyone else wants around the table, that he's going to be dissatisfied or everyone else is. I'd talk to him directly about what he wants from the game.

Sandbox games are not for everyone. Having a plot line for the players to follow doesn't necessarily make a game a story game either. A mundane world like many sandbox videogames are poorly made IMHO; they actually have to build in quests for players for it to feel meaningful. In a tabletop sandbox game the PCs begin at the low end of the movers and shakers of the world. But they can make a difference, if they only choose to do so. They are important and become tied to the world in hundreds of ways as they engage with it. Each grows in their own individual way even if the scope of their explorations are focused (and balanced) by class. The more connections the players make to the game and the PCs make with NPCs and other elements within the game world, the more meaningful and story-like (in your terms) the game should become.

It's not easy and connecting everything together is difficult and time consuming, but it is worth it. Plus, remember that this is a shared world. Ask the players what they want in there, what activities they'd like to engage in. Then put all of those thing in your world. During play they can seek those out or play with what's in front of them now.

Good luck in the future. There are a lot of good posts in this thread on "easing players into a sandbox style game". Hopefully we're helping.

 

[Rechan]

There's also the possibility your group could just not cut out for sandbox play. Either it just doesn't fit their personality or their tastes. You can't make them, and if they genuinely prefer linear games, why fight it?

Having been on these boards for years, and I have to say I find there to be a pervasive attitude that the sandbox is the be-all end-all, the thing to aspire to and the pinnacle of DMing. Story/linear/Adventure Path games are looked down upon for being railroady/all about the GM/players don't matter, etc.