My DM'ing has gotten worse over the years, not better

[Elf Witch]

I think my group might end up doing that as well - I was thinking of going more sandboxy for the next leg of my campaign. But, my group has several strong willed veteran gamers in it, and I'm afraid if they have 8-10 different choices in front of them, they'll end up arguing (I mean, discussing) about all their options and what to do next, with each person favoring a different choice.

So, if that ends up happening, I'll have to nip it in the bud and cut down their options and make sure that they have a few longer-term goals in mind.

My players would agonize over making the right choice. They would get into arguments with each other over just what the right choice was.

If I give them to many hooks this happens.

 

[pawsplay]

I think my group might end up doing that as well - I was thinking of going more sandboxy for the next leg of my campaign. But, my group has several strong willed veteran gamers in it, and I'm afraid if they have 8-10 different choices in front of them, they'll end up arguing (I mean, discussing) about all their options and what to do next, with each person favoring a different choice.

So, if that ends up happening, I'll have to nip it in the bud and cut down their options and make sure that they have a few longer-term goals in mind.

You mean you don't just have a thug with a gun burst in the door and start shooting?

 

[Kzach]

Yeah, if the GM can't be surprised, at least in some small way, it's not really a RPG.

I think that's also one of the problems I have with being prepared. I end up putting SO much effort into the preparation that I get into this mind-set of HAVING to do it that way. And when the players don't take the bait or clue-in to my carefully and cunningly laid plans, I feel like I've wasted all that effort and either get depressed or annoyed about it.

Whereas if I go into a session only having what happened last session as inspiration and just seed the game with random plot hooks whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'm never more invested in anything other than what the players are themselves invested in. I feel this lends itself to a far more natural symbiosis and a sort-of feedback loop of imagination and creativity where the players respond to my input and I respond to theirs which results in a critical-mass of fun for all involved.

At least, that's my theory.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

Sounds like you have solved your own issue then Kzach. There is plenty of sound advice in this thread, but I think you know what you should do.

Even just for a one shot, or a small arc in your campaign. Have the first random thought that leaps into your head have leeway, and see where the rabbit hole leads.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I would never run a sandbox game for my group because they are not the type of players who would enjoy it. They would end up just sitting there paralyzed on what to do and spinning their wheels.

Sandboxes that are entirely reactive are bad sandboxes.

I've occasionally had situations where the players end up in analysis-paralysis, uncertain of where to go or what to do next. Then the proactive elements of the sandbox will come along and jostle them out of it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

"Bad" being subjective, of course. I simply react to my players, but they never seem to lack motivations. Yeah, sometimes they discuss choices, but once you settle in to the style of game, you get used to it. Once the group sets a unified goal, no matter what it is, the decision making process becomes pretty efficient.

Does choice, A, B, C, D, or E bring us closer to goal X? C does? Alright, looks like we're doing C, then.

From my experience, it takes a few sessions for players to reach that point, but once they're there, you can just react with no fear of them being unable to make a choice.

Just my input. As always, play what you like.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sandboxes that are entirely reactive are bad sandboxes.

As Elf Witch says, that depends on the players. If you've got players (or just one player who leads the others) with clear long-term goals then it would probably be fine.

The OD&D megadungeon was an entirely reactive sandbox and yet it worked. Part of that was down to the large player to GM ratio and the lack of The Party as a unified entity. Players were strongly motivated by competition to have the most powerful PC. At times they'd even PvP. There's a story in Dragon #308 about Terry Kuntz's PC enacting a terrorist campaign against the lands of another player to extort money. By this stage the players are practically running the game themselves and the GM is truly a referee.

You're quite right that one can have a sandbox with plots in it. The last time I ran D&D it started out as a game with pretty much a single mission for the PCs, and some setting info, and had become a sandbox by the second session once I'd prepped more material. However the players were so strongly committed to the original mission that it might as well not have been a sandbox. I could've prepped a single adventure path and the game would've played out much the same.

 

[pawsplay]

Sandboxes that are entirely reactive are bad sandboxes.

I've occasionally had situations where the players end up in analysis-paralysis, uncertain of where to go or what to do next. Then the proactive elements of the sandbox will come along and jostle them out of it.

Yeah, you can't have all sand and no box.

 

[knightofround]

For various and sundry reasons I've DM'd a lot. Not just a lot, but for a lot of people as well. A transient DM that can never pin down a group and not for lack of trying. I seem to put together a new group every six months or so and they last anywhere from one session to a dozen or so before something happens and the group disperses into the wilderness.

It was in my last group that I realised something utterly horrible; I was an awful DM. No amount of changing and fixing and adapting would help me. For years I had operated under the assumption that I was an awesome DM. Now, it must be said, that this assumption was based on feedback from people who I DM'd for during the first half-dozen or so years of my RPG interest. I quite literally inspired people who in a million years you wouldn't expect to be into roleplaying, into buying books and becoming RPG enthusiasts. The games I ran were legendary. People always had a blast and whenever I've ran across these people from my past again, they always bring up how good those games were.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of "peaking" as a DM. It happens to athletes, writers, performers, and artists, so why not DMs as well?

Personally the peak of my DMing "career" was 7 years ago when I ran an epic 9 player game over the course of a year. I haven't been able to duplicate that success, and although my DMing in recent years has been okay I know I'm performing below my true potential.

Honestly I think a lot of it has to do with my overall well being. That period of my life was awesome for many reasons other than the kick-ass D&D campaign. I was a happier person back then, and that brought a lot of positivity and spontaneity to my game table. Now that I'm in a more difficult period of my life it's much more difficult to summon up the creative juices and create a fun environment. There is more to being a good DM than preparation and improvisation; you also need to be able to be a good host and help the players have a good time.

I know that you consider yourself a "transient DM" now, but was that always the case? Player dynamics are important too. I think one reason why my 9 player campaign was so successful was because we all knew each other very well. We knew what everyone liked and was able to cater to everyone's interests. Now that my campaigns have greater "player turnover" its tougher to craft a campaign that both the players and myself would enjoy.

 

[cleverkobold]

I too am a spontaneous dm. Last week my players went in a completely diffferent direction than i had planned and i was forced to improvise. It was the best game that i had run in a long time. This week however, i had everything mapped out, encounters planned, npcs statted up, everything that a good dm should do, but it went terribly. I could tell thet the pcs werent really invested in the situation, they simply played through it because it was what i had planned. It did get better towards the end with a near death experience on their part, i guess they're just masachistic like that.