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

[Hussar]

Lord Zack - there's a danger in getting too bogged down in a specific example. While I'm pretty sure that few tables actually see groups sit around a bar hitting on wenches for an entire session, I HAVE seen groups, even when they have pretty strongly signposted adventures (ie. they've accepted a particular tasking as needing to be done) screw around for very, very long periods of time on completely trivial stuff. It's not specifically talking to one NPC for long periods of time, it's talking to EVERY NPC for long periods of time.

It's taking an hour haggling over 5 gp for a spear. It's taking three hours to determine the exact wording of a Divination spell. It's poncing about interviewing every single troopie when hiring a dozen spear carriers to go hunt a creature.

It's all about the pacing.

 

[S'mon]

OTOH, I'm also seeing a lot of "sandbox campaigns suck because they're always set in really boring places" strawmen being spread liberally around the thread. So, yes, it's the DM's responsibility to create a dramatically interesting situations for the PCs to interact with.

I think you need the right sandbox for the right group. Some novice players might be overwhelmed by something like the City State of the Invincible Overlord and 'turtle', other players might be bored by the traditional peaceful village + nearby dungeon.

Of course you can have both in the same setting - maybe the PCs start off at the village/dungeon and go to the city when they have a few levels. Maybe they start out in the city before venturing to the frontier.

 

[S'mon]

It's far easier to screw up a sandbox than a plotsy campaign.

I dunno, my big screw up have all been plotsy "Here's the adventure" stuff*. The big advantage of a sandbox is that by definition the players are deciding to do what interests them. Of course it's then the GM's responsibility to make what interests them interesting, and both need to be on the same page, eg if a PC wants to retire from adventuring and run a shop, it's within the GM's rights to explain this will mean retiring the PC. In fact I think it's the GM's duty to explain if he thinks a particular course of action will lead to a boring game or the end of the campaign. I know that's a mistake I've made in the past.

*The biggest screw up I can recall was a very linear "caravan trek" game in the 2e era, ca 1995. It wasn't going well so I railroad-teleported the PCs to a desert milieu where they got massacred by a Dungeon mag adventure several levels too high for them. I still shudder at the memory.

 

[S'mon]

It's taking an hour haggling over 5 gp for a spear. It's taking three hours to determine the exact wording of a Divination spell. It's poncing about interviewing every single troopie when hiring a dozen spear carriers to go hunt a creature.

It's all about the pacing.

That seems like the kind of pacing the GM can control: "Make a CHA check". If I as GM think something is boring, I cut to to the chase. If it's interesting and developing character/plotlines/contacts then I'll run with it.

The big problem I've seen is players/PCs who Turtle, who withdraw and refuse to interact with the setting. But this happens equally in sandbox, linear, and mixed campaigns, IME. The PCs wenching in the tavern isn't a problem since I can use that to bring in tons of hooks (leads to adventure) and bangs (events that demand immediate action, not necessarily literal banging...) Only if the PCs then Turtle and refuse to follow any hooks or engage with the bangs, does it become a problem, and that is extremely rare and dysfunctional player behaviour IME.

If the players are hanging out in the tavern like Mouser & Fafhrd, maybe they're expecting adventure to ensue, as often happened to Mouser & Fafhrd. If nothing happens this could be a GMing failure as much as a player failure.

 

[Clarabell]

I stopped DMing for this very reason. All but one of the players I've had wouldn't take even the most obvious of hints. And its that one player that everyone else follows. I've rarely gone beyond two or three sessions of a game, so about a month ago I took the same vow that I wouldn't DM anymore.

I've been my groups DM for the past fives years or so now. Its what I love to do. I still make worlds, maps, and adventures, but not for me. If someone else wants to DM and needs something, sure, I'll help them out. But anymore, I'm just tired of it.

When I DM, this might be what happens:

On the mans body you find a ring.

Player: I take the ring.

When I'm a player, this is what happens.

On the mans body, you find a ring.

Me: Describe it. What kind of metal is it, what gems, is there a symbol on it?

Another example, which happened recently, was this:

You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.

Players: I go into the church.

Completely ignoring the cat, which was a side adventure that could have been very beneficial to them.

The other thing that happens is my players go off on randome, out of character tangents that, while funny, are irrelevant. Some say i take the game to seriously, but the truth is I'm trying to play the game, which hardly happens...at all.

I really do think players need to have more of the responsibility. I'll make a world, but if you don't go find an adventure that's your problem. I don't run YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE campaigns. And players ought to focus more on the game. Its supposed to be fun, but when your not even playing, how is the game fun?

 

[Lanefan]

I think you need the right sandbox for the right group. Some novice players might be overwhelmed by something like the City State of the Invincible Overlord and 'turtle', other players might be bored by the traditional peaceful village + nearby dungeon.

Of course you can have both in the same setting - maybe the PCs start off at the village/dungeon and go to the city when they have a few levels. Maybe they start out in the city before venturing to the frontier.

I find that no matter where I start the party or how amenable the starting area is to adventurers, they will eventually gravitate to the largest city they can find and - unless something dictates otherwise - that will forever become their base of operations.

Lan-"City State of the Invincible Overlord = whole setting in a module"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

When I'm a player, this is what happens.

On the mans body, you find a ring.

Me: Describe it. What kind of metal is it, what gems, is there a symbol on it?

When I play, it's:

DM: On the man's body, you find a ring.
Me: Take it, put it on and see what it does!

I really do think players need to have more of the responsibility. I'll make a world, but if you don't go find an adventure that's your problem. I don't run YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE campaigns. And players ought to focus more on the game. Its supposed to be fun, but when your not even playing, how is the game fun?

Absolutely. Just don't get caught in the trap where they have to be playing the way you want. Some DMs, for example, won't allow in-party feuding or fighting because it gets in the way of "the game"...but if that's how the players want to play their characters, I say let 'em; as to them that *is* the game!

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.

Players: I go into the church.

Completely ignoring the cat, which was a side adventure that could have been very beneficial to them.

Um, unless my PC was noted for his/her love of cats, that's exactly what I'd do too. If you wanted the cat to hook in the PCs then it should have approached them, not just sat there like a perfectly ordinary piece of local colour.

Also the "describe the ring" stuff sounds a bit like pixel-bitching to me. If the ring's appearance is significant, the GM should say so, or roll to see if the PC recognises its significance.

I think this really brings up how the game is a two-way street, it's not all on the players to make it work.

 

[S'mon]

I find that no matter where I start the party or how amenable the starting area is to adventurers, they will eventually gravitate to the largest city they can find and - unless something dictates otherwise - that will forever become their base of operations.

Lan-"City State of the Invincible Overlord = whole setting in a module"-efan

This was inevitable in 3e because of the settlement size-based gp limit on purchase of magic items.

Also PoL settings encourage this.

I think though that if you have a mostly civilised setting where adventure is on the frontier and the cities are safe and dull, the PCs will go where the adventure is.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.

Players: I go into the church.

Completely ignoring the cat, which was a side adventure that could have been very beneficial to them.

I think that's perfectly reasonable behaviour on the part of the players. A stray cat is almost the least remarkable thing to be found in a town, there's no reason why the PCs should find it noteworthy or want to interact with it. Imho it's *far* too subtle for an adventure hook.