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

[Oryan77]

You want credentials? When I took the job placement test back in high school, it came back saying that I should look for a position as a Dungeon Master.

Nobody told me the pay was crap. Now I wish I just stuck to being a player.

As DM, I find myself reminding the players all the time about hooks & plotlines & even often nudging them in the right direction just to get the ball rolling. I can't really blame them. Part of the problem with players though is that as we get older, keeping up with a plot in an adventure almost seems like working overtime. Sometimes you don't want to think much and you just want to react. Sure, it can be interesting to learn about some plotline, but overall, I think people just want to unwind without thinking too much.

I kind of do that with videogames. After working all week, it's actually very relaxing just loading up a FPS and mindlessly run around shooting people. And if I'm playing an RPG videogame like Fallout 3, sometimes I'm just skipping through the dialogue scenes without reading them so I can hurry and get back to the action. That's kind of how I see a lot of players approach D&D sometimes.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I don't think it's anybodies responsibility.

I haven't been DMing as long as you, however when somebody is constantly at odds with their group, it's usually a problem with them and not the players neglecting their storyline responsibilities.

 

[S'mon]

Um, sandboxes do require plot hooks - LOTS of plot hooks! In a strict sandbox the PCs might need to do some work to locate the hooks, but there's nothing wrong with having NPCs mention them during a casual night's drinking: "The barmaid mentions her nephew and his friends went off exploring the Old Willard Mansion yesterday and he's not come back - the parents are worried sick..."

This is what those old Rumour Tables in sandbox adventures and sourcebooks were for. The GM should not be running a setting where Nothing Ever Happens, full of Pirates Who Don't Do Anything.

The difference is that in a linear game there is One hook, and the PCs need to follow it or there's no game. In a sandbox there are lots and lots and lots, and any particular hook can be ignored - in fact some SHOULD be ignored as they may lead to certain death for low-level PCs - "The King puts out a call for adventurers to slay the Great Wyrm Ancalagorn troubling the Realm" is best ignored by 1st level PCs.

 

[S'mon]

Oh, I think the title of the OP is right.

In a fully sandbox type game, the players have the responsibility to forge their own story.

In a fully linear game, the players have the responsibility to follow the dots of the pre-written story.

Most games fall in-between, eg my Willow Vale campaign was linear at the campaign level, but each scenario within the campaign was largely open and site-based, giving freedom of action within the physical parameters of the adventure.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think there's any need for a massive sandbox with dozens and dozens of adventure opportunities. A half-dozen or so, tops, should be fine for each session.

As GM I think I rarely give out more than about 2-3 different 'hooks' in any one session. The exception would be if the PCs were actively seeking to hoover up every single rumour in a locale, going through a big city like that I guess they could potentially accumulate a double-figure number of hooks, which could be challenging if I had no idea which one or ones they'd then go for. I might even need to use delaying tactics like the ole 'random' encounter to give me time to prep fully for the next session.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm with Kzach on this one. As a player you wouldn't turn up to a Call of Cthulhu session and then just ignore the scenario that the GM has prepared for your evening's entertainment, so why would you do it in D&D? This may sound harsh but as a player it is your responsibility to turn up and play what your DM has prepared. I don't mean accept railroading, because you can wander on tangents and find your own way through, but if the DM has prepared his campaign or adventure, then play it.

As a DM 90% of the time, I am happy for the playful banter and RP in the tavern for about five minutes. After that I want the players to snap to and play the game. Play the scenario. For that remaining 10% when I'm a player, I want to turn up and take part in the prepared story. I don't see why the majority of the time it should be any different for any other player.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, I think the title of the OP is right.

In a fully sandbox type game, the players have the responsibility to forge their own story.

In a fully linear game, the players have the responsibility to follow the dots of the pre-written story.

Most games fall in-between, eg my Willow Vale campaign was linear at the campaign level, but each scenario within the campaign was largely open and site-based, giving freedom of action within the physical parameters of the adventure.

This is how I view a good campaign. Given scenarios should be pretty open and non-linear, but, for me, the needs of pacing dictates that the connections between scenarios should be pretty short.

 

[Dausuul]

Pretty much agree with the OP, but would phrase it thus: It is the responsibility of the players to do something.

When the DM provides a plot hook, it's generally good manners to bite on it. That said, if you really don't like this plot hook--or something else is just too enticing--or you simply misunderstand what the DM expects of you--it's okay to go do something else, and it's the DM's job to roll with it when you do. (Be prepared to take a short break while the DM whips up something interesting, and don't expect the "something interesting" to be too carefully thought-out.) A well-crafted campaign world can dish up adventure anywhere.

What's not okay is to ignore plot hooks, then kick around town doing nothing in particular for the whole session. If you're going to disregard the adventure the DM has crafted for you, then you better go find one of your own.

That's not to say you can't hang around and hit on barmaids for a few minutes. It's a good way to settle in to the game world. But if you fail your Diplomacy check--or Bluff, depending on your pickup line--just accept that you're not going to get any imaginary sex tonight and move on.

(Of course, the really clever DMs will build in plot hooks that trigger when a PC hits on a barmaid. Heh.)

 

[S'mon]

(Of course, the really clever DMs will build in plot hooks that trigger when a PC hits on a barmaid. Heh.)

There's also the old "floating hook" trick.

Example from my City State game - a PC, Deod the Skandik, hit on an attractive female aristocrat, Thaya, at the Bywater Baths, she invited him to call round to her place. I had an adventure hook ready, she'd ask him to rescue her sister's son from the goblin ruins. Perhaps because Deod suspected (correctly) that Thaya was married, he didn't take up the offer to call on her.

Meanwhile another PC, Taliesin, was wandering randomly around town, checking things out. After awhile he gets talking to a halfling baker, Tinker, who's closing up shop.

And...

It just so turns out Tinker's sister's boys are missing in the goblin ruins.

Note that this wasn't railroaded - having dropped the hook, the PCs remain free to accept or reject it. Once they reject it, fine, it's used, it turns out Thaya doesn't have a sister, Tinker's nephews get eaten by the goblins - the hook won't keep following the PCs around demanding attention like in a bad CRPG. I might offer a different hook to the goblin ruins later on (in fact I did later on have a different hook for a different PC, the goblins had kidnapped a teacher from the School of Ancient Knowledge), but probably not at least for several sessions with these PCs.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I used to find writing up a storyhour was excellent value, as the players would read it and get reminded of important dangling plot hooks from one or more of the adventures.