Is too small of a sandbox the same as railroading?

[Michael Silverbane]

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.

 

[bert1000]

Sounds like your players are jerks, or you haven't set player / DM expectations. If they are just jerks, find some other people.

If not, then talk it out. I think a city can be large enough for a sandbox if everyone agrees, but it's not what I would expect if I was told "this is a sandbox game. You can do whatever you want".

Regardless of whether the box is a city or a larger area, I think you might be doing too much prep. Loosely flesh out some areas, then ask the players after each session what goal they are intending to pursue next session. Those goals then provide enough info for you to do some deeper prep for the next session. If they players want to find out what the dwarves are up to, great, roll with it! If the players are frequently and randomly changing their goals (especially without good in-character reasons) then I say the jerk issue it is again...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Your players should be able to go wherever they wish barring some in world obstacle preventing them from doing so.

Note that this freedom does not entitle the players to an exciting adventure, good XP rewards or any loot.

Lets say the PC's, against all reason, want to go and interact with the dwarves and they want to do it right now. Let them do exactly that. Play out the travel and let them make contact with the dwarves, meet some people and exchange information. There were no rumors of trouble or wealth coming from this area so the players cannot blame the DM if the session ends with no treasure and little XP because the party didn't really accomplish anything of significance.

The world does not automatically have to suddenly sprout exciting opportunities for adventure at all times just because the PC's go looking.

If XP and other rewards are doled out on something akin to a feeding schedule such that the PC's do not have to take meaningful action to gain them then this situation was practically invited.

 

[coyote6]

Your players should be able to go wherever they wish barring some in world obstacle preventing them from doing so.

Note that this freedom does not entitle the players to an exciting adventure, good XP rewards or any loot.

Lets say the PC's, against all reason, want to go and interact with the dwarves and they want to do it right now. Let them do exactly that. Play out the travel and let them make contact with the dwarves, meet some people and exchange information. There were no rumors of trouble or wealth coming from this area so the players cannot blame the DM if the session ends with no treasure and little XP because the party didn't really accomplish anything of significance.

The only problem I'd have with that, as GM, is that I might be bored by that session. I can find better things to do than be bored while GMing.

I'd probably go with S'mon's suggestion -- random encounters (or seemingly random encounters, at least). It is approximately the same as Raymond Chandler's advice -- two guys with guns come through the door.

They still wouldn't have much, if any, treasure. At least none the PCs would want. Maybe one of them might have a non-obvious MacGuffin.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree with ExploderWizard.

The players made a choice to go to Boretown; let them be bored.


RC

 

[JustKim]

I agree with ExploderWizard.

The players made a choice to go to Boretown; let them be bored.


RC

This is a good way to kill the spirit of exploration that a sandbox invites.

But GMforPowergamers, if you're having this much difficulty with a sandbox style game, maybe it isn't right for you and your group. There's really nothing wrong with that.

 

[Beginning of the End]

(1) Based on your description, this doesn't sound like a group that's actually interested in exploring a sandbox. This sounds like a group that likes to find whatever you haven't prepared and then beeline for it. Uncharitably, one would assume that they're s. Charitably, this may simply be their unconscious way of "avoiding the railroad".

Either way, your best bet is to sit down with them and ask them why they seem to be consistently avoiding whatever you have prepped.

(2) More importantly, get their input BEFORE you prep. What type of campaign do you want to play? What activities would your character be interested in? What are you planning to do next week? Prep specifically to their plans instead of hoping that their plans will fit your prep.

 

[Herobizkit]

IMO, what you need to do is create the illusion of choice.

If you have a dungeon prepared, don't stock it until you know what adventure the PC's are going to pursue. Then you can quickly add relevant monsters etc. on the fly.

Or even better, make a massive dungeon out of a bunch of smaller ones, and make them connect somehow.

I would also like to echo what others have been saying about getting the players more involved. One device I've tried in the past is to run an NPC 'rival' team who, for all intents and purposes, are another PC team who go on quests, come back with loot and stories, and level up. If PC's aren't biting on plot hooks, have the NPC team do so, then come back to town and gloat about all their treasure. Have the townsfolk be suitably impressed, treating the NPC group like heroes, giving them extra attention, free drinks, that kind of stuff. The PC's will want that fame as well... if they don't, why are they adventuring?

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is a good way to kill the spirit of exploration that a sandbox invites.

Not IME.

It seems to me that, given a lot of "exciting" options, the players chose to go where one such option did not exist. The entire value of choosing your destination is that the destination you choose is not the same as the one you did not choose.

Players often try to determine the unwritten rules of a setting. It could well be that they are simply trying to discover whether or not they are engaged in a sandbox -- can they go to Boretown? That settled, they may feel better about the hooks offered. It is far easier for good - or even moderately good - players to detect the "illusion of choice" than most GMs believe.

It could be that they have some specific goal in mind. "Can we get these dwarves to make us better armour in exchange for some task?" The answer being Yes or No, they then move on.

It could be that they are thinking "So, these dwarves have no reason to be taking extra precautions right now? Let's see if we can give them one!" Not all PCs are Lawful Good, after all, and the dwarves may have something worth stealing!

The players might just like dwarves.

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.



RC

 

[amerigoV]

Aside from the other advice on talking to the players, these thoughts come to mind:

1) As another said, minimize your work until they choose. Have an idea what may happen at the start. Craft two encounters - one if they pick a local hook, the other if they pick a hook that requires travel. These are really just filler encounters to for the session that represent "time passing".

Or, here is a little dandy out on the Savage Worlds site.
Dramatic Interludes. Replace card draw with dice, if necessary

2) Also as another said, get firm commitment when an adventure nears its close. I had that come up recently with a side quest. 5 minutes at the end of the session let me know if I needed to finish fleshing it out or move on

3) I would keep a few of the hooks in my back pocket. If they decide to ignore the 4 your offer, you have a few back ups as they wonder off.

4) Make it an active sandbox. Doing nothing means the plot will come to you. You mentioned pirates - nothing like a press gang jumping the PCs to get things moving. Or the serial killer is a good option. If they are bored, they are not going to be clumped together. Pick one and attack (or have them see someone fleeing the scene).

5