Litterboxes: Tell us about your crappy Sandbox experiences

[TheAuldGrump]

Let's see, one that I was playing in, back in the nineties, where the GM would get stoned, forget what was going on, then make something new up that didn't always jibe with what had been going on before he betook the Weed of Stupidity.

When running a sandbox... back in the eighties there was a campaign that got derailed by one player that would have his character hide in the inn all day, afraid of what I would do to him when his character left.

The other characters went out, did things, talked to people, fell in a river, and in one case attacked a bush.

They came back to the inn, and he complained that 'nothing had happened'.... to a group of folks that were already well on the way towards figuring out what was going on, that the friendly charismatic town priest led a second life as head of an evil cult, fallen off of the roof of the mill into the weir, and figured out that there were secret rooms under the old ruined castle that the townsfolk had picnics at....

This was followed by an argument where three players tried to explain to him what the term 'adventure' means.

And he would do this Every. Darned. Time. Staying in the inn all day, then follow staying at the inn with complaints that he wasn't gaining experience, that the others had magic items, that the friendly charismatic town priest had come to visit him and then only asked him a bunch of questions about the other PCs....

Yes, he told the villain of the town everything. Then couldn't understand how the other characters could have gotten ambushed, because he hadn't really listened when they tried to tell him what was going on.

Then did not understand why the surviving PCs wrapped him up in a carpet, tied the carpet with ropes, and threw it in the river. And he blamed me for what had happened!

And that was the end of the campaign, the three surviving party members (out of seven) riding off in the dead of night after murdering one of their own.

Nowadays I would give the lazy sod the boot. Back then I had not yet come to realize that some players just suck. He wouldn't even go to the dungeon with them.

The Auld Grump

 

[S'mon]

Nowadays I would give the lazy sod the boot. Back then I had not yet come to realize that some players just suck. He wouldn't even go to the dungeon with them.

I think the best approach here is: "OK, so this character retires. Do you want to create a new PC who can go adventuring with the others?" - or even "This NPC is accompanying the PCs - as your PC isn't adventuring, would you like to play the NPC?"

If nothing works on the turtle, or if he continues all whiny, then yes you need to boot him.

On topic, I remember trying to run a sandbox for my dad when I was ca 11 and it was crappy, partly because he wasn't really into the whole RPG thing,partly he needed far more direction/story. And most of my campaigns have been (a) sandbox and (b) flawed, but I can't really say any were truly crap overall, most of the players enjoyed them. I've definitely had more negative experiences as GM & as player with linear campaigns than with sandboxes; sandbox means player choice, and IME choice = happy players, railroad = unhappy players, even if it's a mediocre sandbox vs a well-written railroad. Sandbox also keeps the GM interested & engaged, wondering what will happen next; I tend to find linear games boring both as player and as GM.

 

[Jhaelen]

I've yet to have a sandbox game go bad, perhaps because the GMs who run that type of campaign have really understood what it takes to run one successfully. All of the bad campaigns I've played in were ones where the GM really wanted us on rails and the players wanted to do something different.

My experience is the opposite: I've yet to see a (supposed) sandbox that doesn't 'go bad' (or rather die an early death).

I agree, though, that litterboxes most often seem to be the result of lazy DMs. The first litterbox of that type was a Rolemaster game set in the Forgotten Realms. Basically, the DM laid out the world map and asked us where we wanted to start and where we wanted to go. That was all. We didn't make it past the first session.

The second reason for failure: Uninspired players. If a DM goes all excited on us, yelling "You are free to do whatever you want!", a probable answer would be "Like, what?"
If the DM then fails to present interesting options examples, the game is dead before it started. Back in the days such games tended to end in the pcs killing each other out of boredom.

Our game groups tend to include only one or two players that are driving things forward. Given complete freedom, these players will soon dominate the game, hogging the spotlight for good. This stops being fun after a few sessions, so again, the campaign dies early.

 

[Gilladian]

My current campaign isn't a litterbox, but I did have an interesting Q&A with the players last time we played.

The situation is that they are in a village near a big dungeon. There's also a bandit problem on the roads, ruins in the forests, and an army of humanoids (who were using the temple in the first level of the dungeon). The PCs are aware of all this. Their hated "other adventuring group" in town has been assaulting the bandits.

I dropped a tempting lead to the PCs about where the bandits live; the PCs ignored it. Outside the game, I asked the players why? Their answer: the dungeon is fun, it's right there, and it seems to be quite large. Why go anywhere else?

So I guess my players have built a railway line between the town and the dungeon! Not that I mind; it still leaves me plenty of room for fun!

 

[Desdichado]

My experience is the opposite: I've yet to see a (supposed) sandbox that doesn't 'go bad' (or rather die an early death).

Me too.

I agree, though, that litterboxes most often seem to be the result of lazy DMs. The first litterbox of that type was a Rolemaster game set in the Forgotten Realms. Basically, the DM laid out the world map and asked us where we wanted to start and where we wanted to go. That was all. We didn't make it past the first session.

Now that I don't agree with. While I agree that bad GMing is a major failing of any sandbox game I've ever witnessed or been part of, I'm not sure that was the major reason for the failure. Unless you make the case that a GM trying to idealogically impose a sandbox scenario on a group of players who don't really prefer playing in that type of mileu is really the GM's "fault" exactly.

Our game groups tend to include only one or two players that are driving things forward. Given complete freedom, these players will soon dominate the game, hogging the spotlight for good. This stops being fun after a few sessions, so again, the campaign dies early.

Well, the hogging the spotlight is clearly going a bit too far, but in my experience, you want a couple of players to start driving the game, and that's one of the few ways in which a sandbox can avoid turning into a litterbox. If everyone is trying to drive the game, the notion of them all wanting to go the same direction is unlikely. If most of the group is (relatively) more passive and let's a few more vocal folks take the lead in charting the game's course, you might actually have a recipe for a sandbox that works.

Assuming that their aware enough to make sure that they're not dominating the game in a way that's not going to be off-putting for everyone else, of course. Which you are implying seems to be the case for your group.

 

[howandwhy99]

(most of these fall into erroneous expectations, either the DM or the Players not knowing what to do)

1. The players decided the game was a battle royale, a secret competition of all against all. This began with a boring game turning into an incestuous, Machiavellian affair that was fun and eventful for awhile, then ended with fights between the players and lots of lying and distrust in general.

2. The DM had a static rather than dynamic world. There was nothing was going on. Excitement? Action? We had to create our own as no amount of exploration really led to anything interesting. Sure, kill this monster, grab his stuff, but that was the whole of it. It was like trying to hold a conversation with someone who never has anything to say. All the work was on us and it was all uphill in other words.

3. The players really wanted a directed path finding game. That's what they were used to, so they kept trying to determine what they were supposed to be doing. Who is our contact? What's the mission? Where's the story? Where is the plot for us to follow basically. Since this world was pretty static too there wasn't much hope there of changing these expectations.

4. Paranoia. This isn't about a sandbox so much as staying alive for a whole session. This one hasn't happened to me, but high kill totals have been in vogue lately, so I could see this becoming an exercise in futility too.

I think it's best to be clear one what's the point and scope of any game, but sandbox games probably doubly so.

 

[ggroy]

I briefly DM'd a 4E D&D sandbox game in the post-Spellplague 4E Forgotten Realms.

It turned out the players were not particularly experienced with rpg games, and didn't really know how to play in a sandbox.

They ended up mostly getting into barfights and beating up random people on the streets of Waterdeep. They completely missed all hints and ads (on bulletin boards) alluding to possible missions and other work-for-hire. After killing everybody in a particular bar/saloon, they set the place on fire and watched it burn to the ground.


The game collapsed after a short period of time. I later found out these particular players were more interested in playing through a module instead. I ended up resigning the DM chair, and one of the other players became the DM where we played through the 4E "Thunderspire Labyrinth" module instead.

 

[S'mon]

The second reason for failure: Uninspired players. If a DM goes all excited on us, yelling "You are free to do whatever you want!", a probable answer would be "Like, what?"
If the DM then fails to present interesting options examples, the game is dead before it started.

A good sandbox needs to have stuff going on. I like the intro to Loudwater from the FRCS:

The town of Loudwater sits at the confluence of the Delimbiyr and Grayflow rivers. The forested shoulders of the Star Mounts rise above the town in the northwestern sky. These cloud-veiled peaks remind the townspeople that beyond the city’s walls stretch wild lands, where deadly monsters threaten the unwary.

Merchants, caravan guards, local craftsfolk, hunters, farmers, and retired adventurers treat the Green Tankard Tavern in Loudwater as a second home. In the tavern’s common room, talk turns to tales of hostile tribes and barrows glimpsed through mists; folk speak warily of goblins in the Southwood, of the serpent folk of Najara, and of ancient, ruined kingdoms.

The tavern attracts young and old with its warm company and tall tales. But before buying an ale for one of the inn’s regulars, a visitor should think carefully. Many adventures have started from stories exchanged over cheap ale and greasy food, but not all have ended with the glorious exploits of which bards sing. An old story or a wrinkled map could be the doorway to adventure—or the path to a quick death...

I usually aim to have at least 3 different things going on the PCs could get involved in, plus whatever they decide proactively. Loudwater in the FRCS for instance has the Southwood Goblins, the Lady of Shadows and the Zelbross Slavers/Bandits right off the bat, plus lots of hooks to further adventures.

 

[S'mon]

Our game groups tend to include only one or two players that are driving things forward. Given complete freedom, these players will soon dominate the game, hogging the spotlight for good. This stops being fun after a few sessions, so again, the campaign dies early.

As DM I would rather keep the campaign going with the one or two proactive players, plus any happy watchers, and drop the malcontents. One thing about a sandbox is that it works well with a small group of players, and with an irregular player base (West Marches style).

 

[kitsune9]

A "litterbox" is a sandbox gone wrong. Maybe the players go tharn, unable or unwilling to act. Maybe the referee's setting is so bland that it's best described by the flavor of something before the vanilla is added.

That is a great sandbox gaming term!

We can even define a couple of other terms:

Litterbox player - this annoying player doesn't want to take the initiative to go and explore the sandbox. He / she is risk-aversive.

Litterbox DM - this DM has poorly constructed a sandbox in which there really are no interesting locations to be explored, no plots of any type to be discovered and that encounters are random and pulled out of the DM's butt for no rhyme or reason.