Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[Nameless1]

They are experienced PCs, not new characters.

See the difference?

No because the campaign starts at the same time for all of them. Are there prequels that I do not know about?

 

[S'mon]

Sounds like your play flow is:

Discuss theme -> Create characters with motivations -> Something that follows this.

If that something is Action! then it fits how I like to play. If that something includes several hours of wandering around trying to figure out how to accomplish your goals or have some type of Action!, I would think that your games started pretty dull, and I would say that it is your fault. My end of the deal had been fulfilled when I created a character that was a 17th centure swashbuckler who had some goals, and I would even add some relationships. The fact that you made me wander around for hours before you attacked my motivations or my contacts or me would be a letdown.

But that is just how I like to play. Other people like to sit in bars and talk to barmaids. I just think that D'Artagnan would rather his story not include hours of accomplishing nothing.

Let me tell you how I do it in my current City State of the Invincible Overlord game. It's a sandbox, it involves a lot of sitting in taverns.

However, the first thing I do with many of the new PCs, in between them disembarking at the docks and getting to the tavern, is hit them with a 'bang', an event they can react to which is usually dangerous and can showcase the character of their PC. For the CSIO it's often a damsel-in-distress type event, eg the first encounter in the campaign was an escaped wrongfully enslaved female paladin cornered by the slavers, the PCs helped her defeat the slavers. The PCs could have ignored the situation, or helped the slavers.

Likewise when they're in the tavern, occasionally stuff happens, like the big sailor defeating all comers in arm-wrestling. A PC challenged him to an arm wrestle, lost, but befriended the sailor and recruited him on their delve into the goblin ruins.

And finally, if PCs choose to wander around town, again lots of stuff will happen around them, they'll encounter various NPCs, there'll be plenty of hooks and bangs to interact with or ignore.

 

[Nameless1]

Let me tell you how I do it in my current City State of the Invincible Overlord game.

*snip*

bangs

*snip*

Now your speaking my language.

 

[S'mon]

Now your speaking my language.

Yeah, well... I say "bangs" rather than just "encounters" because as per Edwards' definition they're normally events that require the PC to take positive action, even if just to ignore the event, and that reaction says something about the character of the PC. For this purpose "the errand-girl is threatened by orc thugs" is much more useful than "your PC is attacked by orc thugs" - as I recall Edwards pointed out in Sorcerer & Sword, the latter doesn't lead to any character development, at most it establishes whether the PC is the fight or run away type, and whether he's capable of defending himself.

But these are just one GMing technique that happens to work well in sandbox play. Proactive PCs are still very useful, eg IMC a Fighter PC was wandering randomly around the city and approached a strange halfling baker who was shutting up shop about purchasing the strange mechanical contraptions in store (monkey-driven blenders & such), which let me drop a 'hook' - the halfling asked the PC to rescue his missing nephews from the goblin ruins. The halfling was a static encounter from the City State book, while the adventure hook was a floating hook I could drop in wherever appropriate.

I'd say that PCs who just sit in the tavern waiting for hooks, and never leave it to go looking further, are not very good for sandbox exploratory play. Most of the tavern-sitting IMC involves the PCs interacting, getting to know each other and make their plans. It's enjoyable and establishes character, so I don't try to short-circuit it.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Hi, Clarabell. I'm sorry you had such a negative experience running a game. However, what you've presented here is good stuff; I see a number of mistakes I had made myself over the years as a DM. I think I can help you by comparing your experience to my own.

First, is the attempt to perform good deeds. The whole turn-black-coins-to-gold and performing good deeds is good stuff. There's a hook, a reward, and a call to action. This is good, and certainly not a standard hook, making it more interesting.

Now, of course, is the stray cat. In my experience, I've always had stray cats around in real life. Some are semi-domesticated, but most are feral. Perhaps you make sure they have a place to sleep somewhere and some food if you want, but most stray cats wouldn't want a home. Personally, finding a home for a stray cat is like finding a home for a stray raccoon. You're doing everyone, including the cat, a favor by not trying. So, in this case, you don't want to show a stray cat, but a cat in need of a home. But really, in this case, the cat isn't the real problem.

You said you wanted a sandbox, not a railroad. You want to give the players freedom of choice in their actions. Unfortunately, you gave them a railroad. This is the real problem here. You say you wanted the PCs to go out and do good deeds, but that wasn't really what you were looking for. Donating a cooked deer to the church is a good deed. It wasn't the good deed you expected, but it was a good deed. By limiting rewards to actions that you expect and are prepared for, you take away the sandbox. In essence, the PCs could do whatever they wanted, as long as it was finding the cat a home. If nothing moves forward until the PCs take the hook, then no matter how hidden the hook may be, there isn't actually free will.

And free will is absolutely key to a sandbox. The curse you gave the PC is a huge free will killer. Basically, the curse meant that it doesn't matter what the PC wants to accomplish, it won't happen. The PC is not allowed to hold hopes, or plans for the future. So, the player's reaction of running around trying to do as much evil as possible is natural. The player is trying to assert free will, and you tried to prevent it. Players choose what to do in the hope of carrying out specific ends. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not. However, if they are prevented from carrying out any ends that they choose, then there is no free choice, and just the railroad again.

In a sandbox, you can't push the players to an action. You can only pull. The coins were an example of a pull. The cat was a push. A pull suggests rewards or a prevention of harm in performing an action. A push merely forces an action. The players also indicated what sort of activities they are looking to perform--they went out and hunted deer without any push or pull. They even donated the deer to feed the hungry. In doing so, they did follow the pull of the black coins. You don't need to blatantly thrust the plot upon them in order to have them run around doing good deeds. You do if you want them to perform very specific deeds (like find the cat a home).

Honestly, I hope you give DMing another chance. You haven't made any mistakes I haven't made in the past, and getting over these hurdles will open up the way for you. Here's a few tips that might help next time:

• Hiding your hooks doesn't make an activity any less of a railroad.
• Respect the players' free will.
• Pull, don't push.
• Listen to the players and watch what they do without hooks. They want to do more of that.

 

[athos]

• Hiding your hooks doesn't make an activity any less of a railroad.
• Respect the players' free will.
• Pull, don't push.
• Listen to the players and watch what they do without hooks. They want to do more of that.

Good stuff... really good stuff...

especially the 4th bullet.

Reminds me of an old CSM I had who once said it is easier to drag soldiers along with you than to push them in front of you. He also said there were no bad squads, just bad squad leaders, your mileage may vary on that one but I have found it a very useful thing to remember whenever I thought my team was "lame".

 

[Barastrondo]

When you outline more advanced character goals, you seem to start at nothing. I like to have a my characters have a little more involvement in the world before we even start play, that way I can hit them where it hurts. Characters with no roots cannot be hurt. You should always hurt the characters. How they handle it is the story.

Not to argue against a style of play if it works for your group, but the philosophy of "Characters with no roots should cannot be hurt" and "You should always hurt the characters", applied broadly, is precisely why some people create rootless characters with no attachments to the world. They've been taught that background ties can bring them more grief than good. Now, a good GM can take that philosophy and ensure that background ties will bring them more joy than hurt, but if a GM doesn't do that — and many don't — and the players aren't masochistic — and many aren't — that's one of the reasons that threads like this ask the question of why players don't get more involved with the worlds around them. Many have been taught not to do so.

Again, trust issues. If you trust your GM to give you the play style you want, this works great. If you're invested in the "story" that comes out of "being hurt," awesome. But I would never recommend this philosophy to a new GM who is wondering how to invest his players in the world. It's failed too many already, and with good reason.

 

[Nameless1]

Not to argue against a style of play if it works for your group, but the philosophy of "Characters with no roots should cannot be hurt" and "You should always hurt the characters", applied broadly, is precisely why some people create rootless characters with no attachments to the world.

You are right. My statement was too simplistic. Stopping at hurting the characters is not always good. There is usually a next step which is triumph and sometimes recovery of what was lost.

But the point really should have been that rootless characters have no investment in the world. Adventures are uncomfortable at best, tradgedies at worst, and a GM has an obligation to make things at least uncomfortable for the characters. Characters who are completely insulated from the world cannot have adventures happen to them. No non-sociopath every freely jumps into life or death fights against monsters without some investment in the outcome of the situation. Investment is key, and it is always character specific. A GM should go after those specific things.

 

[Barastrondo]

You are right. My statement was too simplistic. Stopping at hurting the characters is not always good. There is usually a next step which is triumph and sometimes recovery of what was lost.

But the point really should have been that rootless characters have no investment in the world. Adventures are uncomfortable at best, tradgedies at worst, and a GM has an obligation to make things at least uncomfortable for the characters. Characters who are completely insulated from the world cannot have adventures happen to them. No non-sociopath every freely jumps into life or death fights against monsters without some investment in the outcome of the situation. Investment is key, and it is always character specific. A GM should go after those specific things.

I'd suggest an alternate route as well; not to replace adventures like that, but to supplant them. Players don't have to be constantly facing a losing proposition to be invested. You can also give them the opportunity to build things. It may be founding taverns, it may be training a militia, it may be building strongholds or thieves' guilds, but the ability to shape a bit of the world in the players' image is also a way to get some investment out of them.

And then you can threaten the thing they've built and watch them react like furious mother owlbears, stomping the enemy into a fine red paste. That's some pretty satisfying stuff.

 

[Merkuri]

If a DM just sits my PC down in a bar and says, "Go!" I will probably have some trouble thinking up something to do. I need direction of some sort, even if it's in the form of a colorful world.

Good heavens, why?!

Merkuri, I don't want you to think I'm picking on you specifically here; I did read your following paragraph, but I'm trying to understand this concept, and you're not the first nor the only gamer to express this.

There have been studies that show that people in general say they want more choices, but once they have those extra choices they have a harder time making a decision than when they had fewer choices.

Example: You're picking out a couch. Your couch comes in 3 colors. It will probably take you a few minutes to make a decision. Now you're picking out wallpaper. You have over 2,000 wallpapers to choose from. You will probably take days, if not weeks, to pick your wallpaper. (This is all assuming "you" care about decorating, of course.)

Putting me in a bar with no direction at all, just "You're in a bar," is like giving me an infinite number of wallpapers to choose from.

Perhaps if I were used to playing in such games I would learn where to look for plot hooks, but in the games I play the DMs don't make me go looking for hooks, they're right there in front of me. They could be as obvious as a girl running shrieking into the bar or as subtle as a man in the corner staring at the party, but they tend to appear in the description of the place we're in or they're events that happen while we're there.

As a player, I'm assuming there are hooks somewhere. I want to bite on your hooks. I know DMs put a lot of time into prep for the game (at least, my DMs have done so) and I don't want that prep to go to waste. The DM spent all that time to put together a fun adventure, dungeon, or scenario for me, and I'd be a rude little player if I don't play along. I like playing along, just like I like saying "yes and" when doing improv.

Maybe my "there are hooks" assumption doesn't apply to your games, Shaman. Are you a DM that like to improv the whole session? If so, that's awesome, and a rare talent in a DM. In my experience, though, these DMs are rare, and most of them have some sort of situation (perhaps one of many) they want the players to get to in this session, and they place hooks around in a way that's not that hard to find.

Also, I like grand plots. I like campaigns where I find out that strange beggar we met in the first session is actually the evil wizard who's been harassing the PCs throughout their entire career. I like when the PCs have been looking the entire campaign for the McGuffin, each adventure taking them closer. If you want to call that a railroad, then I like railroads.

I think the term "railroad" suggests other things that I do not like, such as a lack of PC free will, so perhaps I should say that I like linear or branching campaigns (I think one person upthread referred to this as an "interchange"). I like a plot, but if the DM expected me to go left and I jerk right I expect him to roll with it and not try to yank me back on the rails.

Does that help you understand the "I don't know what do do in a bar" mentality? Not trying to convince you that my way is the "right" way (there is no single right way to play), just trying to help you grok why some gamers might not know how to look for plot hooks the way you want them to.