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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5793242" data-attributes="member: 54877"> Absolutely there is more to it than number of options. It is which ones you pick, and how that frames the choices. Or as Janx so aptly put it, the difference between theoretical choices and CHOICES!  It is difficult to use specifics here, because I don't know your players and their characters. But let me make some assumptions for discussion sake. The ones that didn't have an opinion and/or had an opinion but it was mainly about "that sounds fun", aren't being confronted with CHOICES. The could return to the NPC and then do the portals in turn. Or they could do a portal and the NPC will be there when they get back. It's just order of operations. That may not be true, in fact--and I kind of doubt it given that you said you've run sandbox for active players before. But it is what they think. So the framing of the choice is what creates that mistaken perception. For these guys, you may need to actually say something like, "You can go through the portal after the ritual, but legend says it is one way, and a long way back, unless you hit the phase of the moon right. Or you can go talk to the aging NPC with a hacking cough before she finally buys the farm." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />  That's part of what I was hinting at with out of game discussion of limits. You need it to be crystal clear that are upsides and downsides to each choice, which is what makes them CHOICES. If beating them over the head with it for now is the only way to do it, so be it. They'll quickly catch on, and start picking up on more subtle framing clues, in game. And if something goes totally sour, later, due to some misunderstanding of subtle clues, you'll have already established that is ok to drop out of game for a minute and clear it up. I average doing this about once every other session (more if tired, long gaps between play, less otherwise): "You did catch that the Baron is apparently planning to kill the hostages one at a time, starting tonight, right?"  OTOH, for the players that are already aware of real CHOICE, but having disagreements, either the disagreement are germane to the party and play in game, or they are not. Not is something like one guy likes portal 1 because he (the player) just likes jumping through portals, while the other guy wants to talk to the NPC because he likes to talk. Not that those aren't valid preferences, and should be discussed and catered to overtime, but those are player preferences that should not be the main thing driving the CHOICE. (They are more of a nice sauce you pour over the choice after you pick it.) But let us say instead that character #1 (not the player) hates the Hollow Woman so much that it has blinded him to anything else. Meanwhile, character #2 has developed a protector-type attachment to the NPC, who may be threated by her knowledge. So of course they disagree on what to do. You want this! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> They don't need an hour to resolve it, but get rid of all the stuff above, quickly, out of game if necessary, and it probably won't take 15 minutes. Or alternately, every character has some competing priority like this, and it does take an hour--a wonderful, intense hour where you largely sit back and relax and watch the players run the game by themselves.  This is why I play sandbox. The players get to do what they want--and then they decided to go back to the sewers, and the Hollow Woman gets a minion to kill the NPC. Now characters #1 and #2 have a history--a grudge, or mutual sorrow, or any number of logical outcomes that fit their conceptions of their characters.   Sure, I used a geographic example, because those are easiest. But any outside limit you place on the campaign, characters, adventure, etc. will work. A Planescape, go anywhere, do anything, is too much like telling the 6 year old to "make art". So try, "the characters are paragons of honor" (or chivalry or deceit or even several of those. Or even tougher on some groups, "geased to never tell the truth outside the party". (That last one is a thin patina of in-game rationalization on a box limit chosen to constrain the courses of action and get them in trouble.) You can even turn the typical plotted story on its head. instead of one PC being the "chosen one" or the "heir to the imperial throne" or whatever, with the rest of the PCs as retainers, and making the campaign about gaining the rightful throne--try all of the PCs are "chosen" or "distant heirs to the imperial throne". Meanwhile, chosen or heirs are getting slowly but systematically wiped out. Now, in that setup it should be understood that doing the "chosen" big activity or gaining the throne is not the object. Rather, they can try that if they want, or try to run, or try to uncover what is happening, or even ignore it (albeit to their peril). No matter what they do, that threat is hanging over their heads, and getting worse. It constrains their choices--just not so much that if they want to spend almost or even all of the campaign plane-hopping as magical merchants, they can. Make that explicit up front. Then if you ever reach the point where the shadowy organization, in the background killing all these people, really ticks off the players enough, the campaign will pivot, and it will be their CHOICE. If they don't, well that was a CHOICE, too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification