I wanna get back on the railroad

[Ariosto]

Janx, from what I read you set out to do something. That's all I expect of a player, not a particular (i.e., specified by me) goal. Expecting to be told exactly what to do would not be really playing the game, to my mind. Having a broad default goal built in (securing treasure, in classic D&D) seems like an asset for a game -- but the essential thing for players is to put together a plan of some sort and carry it through.


Improvisation is not only acceptable, but essential to an RPG in which the players are free to "jump the tracks". If they never surprise you, then as a GM you probably are not bringing out the best in them.

On pacing: This is something the players and DM together can control. A "fast forward" at appropriate intervals is par for the course; to play always in real time would be (to me) an exercise in masochism. You can say, "A week later, you arrive at Peril Point ..." and -- unless the players interject, "But wait! Along the way, we want to ..." -- you can skip the day-to-day routine of travel and get right to the next event of significance.

Personally, one thing I find awkward about 4E is that it's set up so that a typical fight scene takes as long as, or longer than, I would spend on a really critical one. Usually, though, game mechanics don't lay that heavy a hand on the structure of a session. They're your tools, to use to your ends.

 

[Noumenon]

1. If you are not going to railroad, "pacing" / speed and direction of play are up to the players not you.

That's why I'm thinking of getting back on the railroad, because speed and direction of play are more fun when you're cruising through a dungeon than milling about. Not always, but certainly in my last two sessions. The players either don't know how to create a well-paced session or they don't agree on what they want. I think a DM can do a lot better at keeping things moving with planned out encounters than a party can by searching for something to throw themselves at.

I have to say that the two things I pulled out of my butt in a desperate attempt to add some action to the storyline were the best things in either session. The mephit became a character the players were happy to see again, and the shark encounter I described above was very fun and unpredictable, it just derailed the adventure. I didn't plan the swamping, the shark, the player dropping his sword and diving after it, the shark repellent, or the gaseous form life vest, and it came out a cool memorable encounter anyway.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It appears that you think highly enough of the possibility of fun sandbox play to want to give it a very fair shake. Which is great--never hurts to expand your experiences, even if you decide you don't like it in the end.

However, nothing says that you must commit 100% in order to give it a fair shake. As others have said, it requires skill (GM and players) to play this way, and not all of those skills are developed in other modes of play. (It requires skil to run scripted well, too, but for some reason everyone assumes that these skills come easily or are worth the wait, without the wailing and gnashing of teeth that accompany sandbox discussions.)

So my suggestion is to explicitly have a period where you play sandbox with the training wheels on. It needs to be explicit, so that you and the players don't fall into the kind of habits that will give you the worst of some awful sandbox/scripted nightmare. For example:

1. If the players are about to make a really bad choice of hook (as in the first session, picking the too difficult adventure without scouting it), then stop the session for a few minutes, tell them the problem, and what they should do about it. They won't get the superb learning experience of a TPK (or of running away from one), but you might not have a completely wasted session, either. If the players keep running blindly into things, then after the 2nd or 3rd warning, let them. The lesson will be that much more useful now. Do not save their characters with any form of illusionism or GM fiat here. There are times and places for that in some groups, but this is not one of them. Through explicit out-of-game discussion warn them away, or let them go ahead.

2. Merely because you are running a sandbox, it does not follow that it needs to be a big sandbox. This should also be explicitly discussed. A single town is probably too small. A cramped sandbox is almost as hard to run well as a huge one. A single town surrounded by a few villages, ruins, caves, etc.--all within a day or two of the town--is not too small for a GM learning to sandbox, but roomy enough for the players to not brush up against the walls every time they try something.

3. In any kind of game, when learning new skills, it never hurts to drop out of the game for a few minutes when things are getting boring (or you suspect they are), and talk about it. "Hey, we've been roleplaying in town for 2 hours. You guys happy with that, or you want to get to some action.?" If they want action, and you need to script them into the action for a couple of minutes, make it overt metagaming--and tell them why and how. In effect, guide them through a script that is analogous to what would happen if they chased the hook themselves. Next time, give them a shot at chasing the hook.

As long as the training wheels are obvious, they won't cause any harm, and won't be needed very long.

 

[Janx]

That's why I'm thinking of getting back on the railroad, because speed and direction of play are more fun when you're cruising through a dungeon than milling about. Not always, but certainly in my last two sessions. The players either don't know how to create a well-paced session or they don't agree on what they want. I think a DM can do a lot better at keeping things moving with planned out encounters than a party can by searching for something to throw themselves at.

...snip....

I think the GM has a right and duty to INFLUENCE the pacing. The DM is a type of player. If the DM has no right to introduce events into the game, but the players do, then the GM is simply a reactionary computer to player input.

In theory, the reason a GM is doing this, is to improve the fun everyone is having. Odds are good, the players are getting bored when the pace slows, but they don't know how to fix it, otherwise they would. They are, in effect, waiting for the GM to make something happen, so they can react to it.

If the GM doesn't do this, having players standing around in the game is like sitting around in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nothing happens. At most, time passes. And even the, it has no real effect.

A GM's job is to sense when this is happening, and move the plot along, and get the players back into the action.

It is not railroading to "make things happen", because either the PC or GM can do it.

Even in a sandbox game, if the GM were to sit around, waiting for the PCs to pick something to do, and they finally decide, "I'm going to run for sheriff!" That doesn't get anything moving. If the players then sit there, saying, "yup, gonna be sherriff." The game will still lag. If the GM sees this, and has an NPC initiate some action on that topic, he's not interfering, he's just picking up the pace. That NPC could be trying to tell him how to register, volunteer to be a campaign manager, or even tell him what his opponent is now saying about the wannabe sherrif candidate.

The point is, the GM sees the player intent, and makes something happen to jumpstart the player towards the player's goal. If you don't want your game to be dull, the GM has to do this sometimes.

 

[Ariosto]

Random encounters are a way to add color and verisimilitude, as well as to "stir things up". It is not necessary that each should lead to a fight, or to any major devotion of attention. If the players are aboard a ship, a "shark encounter" is likely to entail no more than a sighting. That in this case it led to more is fine, but you had no obligation to rig the encounter so that it would.

Another purpose is to keep up the pace of events. In the original "dungeon expedition" context, wandering monsters are in a sense a penalty for poor time management -- because they have no treasure, yet tend to deplete resources such as hit points. On the other hand, they ensure that something happens that requires some significant response from the players.

If players are disorganized, there is usually some "in-world" rationale to up the frequency of encounters in keeping with the "in-game" purpose. A group wandering aimlessly can thus not want too much for "action".

Skilled players will undertake some adventure, and proceed toward their objective in such a way as to minimize distractions. In that case, random encounters should be less frequent.

 

[Ariosto]

Also note that random encounters need not be with insignificant figures. They can come bearing "plot hooks" as well! Not every encounter should be of one kind or the other; there should in the long run be a mix.

 

[tankschmidt]

Improv isn't really acceptable from a DM (when they're not playing an NPC).

On the contrary, improv is what being a good DM is all about.

And has always been about.

 

[tankschmidt]

I think the GM has a right and duty to INFLUENCE the pacing. The DM is a type of player. If the DM has no right to introduce events into the game, but the players do, then the GM is simply a reactionary computer to player input.

In theory, the reason a GM is doing this, is to improve the fun everyone is having. Odds are good, the players are getting bored when the pace slows, but they don't know how to fix it, otherwise they would. They are, in effect, waiting for the GM to make something happen, so they can react to it.

Heartily agreed. A wise man once said something along the lines of "if the players don't entertain the DM, the DM will entertain himself at their expense."

 

[S'mon]

Improv isn't really acceptable from a DM (when they're not playing an NPC).

EDIT:
Even then, the DM is playing a different role than Referee, one called Auxiliary under roleplaying terminology. And those roles, NPCs, are pretty highly scripted too for an improvisational acting game. That's why professional actors are hired to perform auxiliary roles in cases of paid for roleplaying. (main link & roleplayUK)

Are you saying a GM should not improvise events, encounters, weather, etc? Everything that occurs in game other than NPC dialogue must be pre-planned?

 

[Herobizkit]

Let the mayor, tired of nagging the PCs, hire some other would-be adventurers. Over time, she hires a sheriff. Based on what she has told the new adventurers, their opinions of the old adventurers may (initially) be rather poor...

I am doing this in my current campaign. What really frustrates PC's is running an NPC adventuring group 'in tandem' with PC efforts/lack of efforts. If PC's head off on their own and ignore a plot hook, the NPC party takes the hook. If PC's overlook any rooms/treasure in their most recent dungeon crawl, the NPC's find it and brag about what they found. Having the PC's MEET the NPC party during an adventure will spice up any boring dungeon crawl, if only for the RP element.