Is too small of a sandbox the same as railroading?

[Mort]

Out of game:

As stated above - talk with the players, find out what they actually want and determine if the kind of game you are running and/or plan to run is actually right for them. This will also allow you to determine if they are genuinely bored/frustrated or are being jerks and trying to throw you off your game (in all likelihood it's the former, but you never know).

In game:

let them have a fun (relatively) uneventful stroll to the dwarven area where they spend a session or two (or longer) determining that nothing of any real interest to them is going on. If they wish to stay there and explore, well, you can decide if it leads anywhere.

If and/or when they finally make it back to the city. Have some of the plot hooks you dangled earlier come to their logical conclusion:

1) the city is in the grips of an evil politician who is robbing it for all its worth, anyone objecting seems to conveniently disappear;

2) a rampaging orc horde is about to attack and loot the city, for which it is woefully unprepared as the politician is too busy lining his own pockets and about to run for it.

etc.

Showing players that inaction has as much or more consequences as action can be a pretty good motivator.

And if none of that grabs them, maybe your style just doesn’t mesh with theirs – it certainly happens.

 

[maddman75]

I think it has to start when the game is suggested to the players. Don't have them create six random D&D dudes and then wonder why they want to go in six different directions. Put the game style you have in mind up front.

"The PCs are all mercenary bandits come to explore the ancient ruins outside town."

"The PCs are all pirates looking for One Leg Jack's lost treasure"

"The PCs have sworn themselves to the Order of Kord, and will go to face down the Orc Hordes."

"The PCs are the sworn knights of Lord Gable, a noble but aging ruler of the frontier".

Then ask them if they want to play this game. Its all up front, they can take it into account when they create backgrounds and character types, etc. If someone's character idea doesn't seem to fit, you can find a way to make it work before the game starts.

At this point, then you are perfectly justified in telling them to make a character that does want to go along with the adventure. You can say "Look man, I'm not railroading, but I said this game was about pirates looking for treasure. You agreed to play it and made a character for it. Its fine that Sparkly McSnowflake wants to go explore dwarven ruins a hundred miles inland, but I'm not going to run a game just for you."

 

[Thanael]

Here's something that you might try out...

In session A, have the plot come to the characters. Assassins or Bounty Hunters or Mercenaries or Thugs or what have you, come to try to kill the player characters. After the characters deal with this situation (which should take up most of the session), then you lay out the plot-hooks, rumors, or whatever. Ask them what they want to do for the next session. Then prepare that.

Each session, play what the players have expressed an interest in during the previous session. At the end of that, you lay out your plot hooks and whatnot for the following session.

Your players can still go off reservation in the middle of their session, but you will not necessarily be throwing out several unused chunks of prepared material because they decided that they didn't like the way things were laid out before them at the beginning of the day.

+1

See also Do You Throw Rocks in Your PC's Puddle? : Critical Hits

 

[jmucchiello]

After they said they wanted to go West I'd have said. Okay, you go west. Since I have nothing planned there, game is over until next time. Who wants to play board games?

Have you considered not GMing? Tell them, since you've ignored these 8 plot hooks I've worked on, I have nothing else. Until you want to play in areas I have setup, someone else can GM from now on. Who wants to run game? What system should I make up a character in?

 

[haakon1]

You're players sound like spoiled, ungrateful jerks.

I think you should give up on DMing for them.

 

[haakon1]

There is nothing wrong with the GM simply saying "Nothing much seems to be happening here. There is a Public Hall where you can stay, 5 gp each night for room and board. How many nights do you wish to stay?" Then it is up to the players to either to make something happen, or to move on where something already is happening.

Because that "safe haven" dwarf village? The one where nothing is happening? That is useful to have in a sandbox. The PCs should know of a place or two that is usually dull and safe. First off, it gives them a place to retreat to. Second, it is a good place to very rarely have something happen (be it a wedding, another celebration, a monster attack, or whatever), because it is there that the contrast will be felt the most.

Good point about having "safe haven" areas of low action, RC.

But the DM with this group is likely to be dealing with actions like, "Can you describe all of the patrons of the tavern? I want go talk to each of them, and ask his name and family history." That leaves the DM scrambling to make stuff up -- in this case, I'd make a quick bar fight from the dwarves getting pissed off at nosy outlanders -- instead of using the stuff that's already developed.

Which kinda brings the DM back to hex one, inventing stuff on the fly instead of using the prepared stuff.

 

[Heathen72]

But the DM with this group is likely to be dealing with actions like, "Can you describe all of the patrons of the tavern? I want go talk to each of them, and ask his name and family history." That leaves the DM scrambling to make stuff up <snip>

There seems to have been a paradigm shift in the DM/PC dynamic over the years. From my vantage point, the DM's role seems to have moved back and forth from that of impartial 'referee', to omniscient world creator; periods where the DM was the omniscient storyteller and the PC's merely characters in his grand narrative, backlashing into more adversarial periods, albeit ones where the powers of DM's were hobbled to create a balance between PC's and DMs.

I have been lucky in that while our gaming group has floated on the surface of the sea of these trends, we have generally moved away from the idea that the GM does all the work, and that he is the one who has total responsibility for the session. And while our DMs still feel at some level that "the buck stops with me if the session isn't fun" these days they are handing over more and more creative power to the players. Instead of the experience being adversarial, with the roles of PC's and DM's rigidly defined, our games are more cooperative, with the PC's given licence to create elements of the world themselves; to jump in and play NPC's if they aren't involved in a passage of play. It is all subject to the direction of the DM, but unless the PCNPC's are ruining the story, our DM's will generally embrace it, and reincorporate the characters or ideas into the game later.

Unfortunately for the Original Poster above, his gaming group sounds like it is one where the DM has had to do most of the work, but also one where the PC's don't have a lot of freedom to co-create. It has turned into a competition, but it is one that all the participants are losing.

 

[TheNovaLord]

if the players wonder off into the unmapped white areas of the world, it stops being so much GM driven and becomes Player driven.

this is fine, and how many indie style games work.

they should now be 'bringing the cool' and narrating whats out there.
Player:"Over the next hill ive heard there is X"
You just then react and throw challenges, of all sorts, at the players.
GM "there totally is, though your information does seem slightly out of date..."

it means the players have to work as hard to make the game work as the GM.

maybe they'll like, maybe they wont

 

[Raven Crowking]

Good point about having "safe haven" areas of low action, RC.

Thanks.

But the DM with this group is likely to be dealing with actions like, "Can you describe all of the patrons of the tavern? I want go talk to each of them, and ask his name and family history." That leaves the DM scrambling to make stuff up -- in this case, I'd make a quick bar fight from the dwarves getting pissed off at nosy outlanders -- instead of using the stuff that's already developed.

I would say, let the world react as it would react. In some cases, a bar fight. In other cases, just have the dwarves toss them in the drunk tank for a week.


RC

 

[Merkuri]

Talk to your players.

Seriously. Don't "teach them a lesson" or threaten to walk out. What we have here is a failure of communication. The players don't seem to want what you're giving them. Find out why. Take a moment before the next session or get everybody together outside of the session (maybe even over email) and talk out of character about what your players want and why they haven't found any of your adventure hooks interesting.

Find out what they want to do and work with them to prep an adventure like that.

Let them know you're willing to work with them, but:

1) You need time to prepare. You are not a magician that can pull an adventure out of your butt. They need to let you know ahead of time what they would like to do next.

2) You need to find the idea fun as well. If you and your players can't compromise on something that's fun for both of you then maybe it's time for you to turn over the DM reigns or find another group.

I seriously doubt your players are trying to make your life difficult, so trying to "punish" them for it or "teach them" not to do it is just going to be stirring up hostilities where there don't need to be any. You need to find out why they don't like what you're throwing at them.