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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 4782465" data-attributes="member: 8835">Well, it's no secret that I hate the term sandboxing.  And I think railroading as a term is used too loosely.One the question of: Are your players having fun?Consider that the GM is also a player.  A better question is "Is Everyone having fun?"On the point of you are not allowed to make plot hooks, I say hogwash.  The GM determines what NPCs are doing.  And if one of them has a problem, he's free to make it the PCs problem, just as the PCs are free to make problems for the NPCs.  Running an environment where ONLY the PCs initiate things and calling it a sandbox is not, it's a wishfulfillment station.In the same vein, many players are LOUSY at initiating anything.  They work best when presented with a problem.  You've got to present them with problems and opportunities, and that may get them involved to taking action.  Many players don't just decide to go somewhere and explore someplace.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Why go to a dungeon, if there's no problem with it?An important element to any "plot hook" is to plan  "what happens if the PCs fail or do nothing".  A consequence.  It's often the threat of consequence that drives players to action.  I may not be keen on yet another rescue a baby from the evil cultists, but I am keen on not having their dead god resurrected and eating the people who own my favorite restaurant.  If the players see a problem, and don't help, either somebody else will (might be consider deus ex machina) or the problem gets worse.  You've got to be constant about that.  If you have somebody else fix it, you're undermining the PCs as protagonists, as well as teaching the players that somebody else will clean up the messes.In the same line, if you create too many plot hooks (problems), the players can realistically only solve 1 at a time.  This means the others will fail.  This will drastically change your campaign world, especially as the problems get bigger per party level.  Because of this, to run a realistic sandbox, if too many problems exist (GM or PC initiated), many of them should get worse, in a way that threatens the campaign stability.  The solution is to NOT create too many problems at once.  It won't help you run a good game.The solution to fix that is to introduce only a few simultaneous problems, and make them interesting and relevant to the players.  This can be taken to mean plot hooks the GM creates, or projects the players decide to undertake.  If the players are working on taking over an old castle, don't introduce other problems, outside of that.  Because you force them to choose between the castle project failing, or the new problem.In that light, my GMing style is such that for a 1st game with new PCs in a new campaign world, I write an adventure that I think would appeal to the PCs as I understand them.  I expect the PCs to bite the plot hook.  They're first level.  They are NOT going to be taking major steps towards their "where I see myself in 20 levels" goals.  At the end of the first game, the players will have met NPCs of the area, made some friends, and gotten a sense of the world.  At the end of that session, is when I ask, "what do your PCs intend to do for the next session?"  I then write the next adventure, based on that input.  So if the party doesn't bite the hook at the 2nd session, they are violating what they told me they wanted to do.The result of this style:I only write material I need for that sessionThe players pursue goals they want to pursueI'm not stuck winging it for the night, because the party keeps doing random things</blockquote>

Verification