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

[Doug McCrae]

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.

I think turtling is a reaction to killer DMing. The whole world is like Tomb of Horrors. If you interact with it in any way, something bad happens. The only way to win is never to interact with anything.

Or maybe the players are just boring people.

 

[S'mon]

I think turtling is a reaction to killer DMing. The whole world is like Tomb of Horrors. If you interact with it in any way, something bad happens. The only way to win is never to interact with anything.

Or maybe the players are just boring people.

Well, the particular player I'm thinking of, his family had fled from behind the Iron Curtain as a child, settled in Argentina just as the Junta was about to take power, then went to Northern Ireland just before the Troubles kicked off. This life history of dictatorship, oppression and terrorism left him a wee bit Turtley IRL. And apparently his previous GM had been a "smoke and mirrors" type, a bit Tomb of Horrors-ish, though I only have his own account of that.

Certainly as GM I reject a lot of the Gygaxian tropes that punish curiousity, and I always seek to reward engagement with the setting. I don't use a lot of dopplegangers, arbitrary deathtraps, or deception plots - I had a deception-based plot recently IMC and the players were pretty much ok with it but I felt a bit uncomfortable, esp as it resulted in the death of 2 PCs, and I doubt I'll do that again soon.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The quick spoiler is that the GM does not organize play. The players do. They schedule the session, and only after they give the GM a goal for the session does it happen. No more sitting around the tavern and wasting time. No plan, no play.

It occurs to me that you could do this without a sandbox. The players give the GM an evocative name for the dungeon they want to crash, say with one week's notice and he goes away and creates it.

Somehow the GM and players always have to meet in the middle. There has to be desire to play from both sides. Down my way, GMs are often asked to run a game by players, with a minimal requirement like 'run a superhero game' and provided that requirement is met, the GM can come up with whatever he likes.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Yep, and afterwards still go back to the biggest city they can find.

I've somewhat solved this in my current campaign by having the biggest city be plain bloody dangerous - sure it's in theory civilized, but it's also a hotbed of murderous scheming, political intrigue, cutthroat espionage, and all-around fun like that. After a couple of visits and (painful) toe-dabbles into the politics, my crew are now mostly giving the place a wide berth!

Problem is, their adventures elsewhere will (I hope) eventually have significant effects on said scheming and espionage; just like it's already having behind-the-scenes effects on their adventures. Then the fun really starts... >evil cackle<

Lanefan

 

[DumbPaladin]

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

I am not sure I entirely agree, although I can see groups of players making such a decision. But do you think this is still true when the party has access to spells like teleport and plane shift, which really open up their travel options?

Also, is it necessarily a bad thing for the party to form an association with a town, regardless of its size? I'm in a campaign where we've undertaken a couple of missions expressly to benefit the city that have taken us quite far afield ...

 

[Hussar]

Sometimes turtling is simply a player's innability, or unwillingness, to engage in the kind of role play the DM puts out in front of them.

I had one player that simply refused to talk to NPC's. He wouldn't do it. Didn't mind too much if other players did it and would sit back and let everyone else have a kick at it, but, absolutely refused to engage in doing it himself. Drove me bananas at the time, but, I realize now I should have just shrugged and moved on. Since the other players were capable of carrying the ball, it wasn't as big of a deal as I made it out to be.

Then again, if I had an entire group like that guy, I think I'd blow my brains out. Well, maybe not that extreme, but, I know there'd be some pretty strong discussions going on and we'd either come to some sort of compromise or I'd be looking for new players.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When I DM, this might be what happens:

On the mans body you find a ring.

Player: I take the ring.

Me as DM: That's what I expected. Any curses can turn up later. And if there was anything really obvious I'd have told you.

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?

Me as DM: Aggghhh! That's the third time we've been through that sort of inspection this session. People wear rings. About half the adults in this town wear wedding rings. And if there was anything obvious about it, I'd have mentioned it. "It looks like an ordinary gold wedding ring, although it's starting to tarnish." I hope I don't have to describe his boots and belt buckle too. And she's going to ask me about the tarnish next, isn't she? I know gold doesn't tarnish - and it's therefore fake. But he bought it twenty years ago. You're not going to find the jeweller - he was probably run out of town fifteen years ago. Or maybe the next plot will be hunting down what's causing the gold in many places to tarnish. I don't know yet.

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.

Me (in character): It's a stray cat. I saw another dozen this morning. *shrug* (Alternatively: That's odd. It's the first time I've seen one in this town - I wonder what happened to the others...)

Me (out of character): Why did she mention the stray cat? Clearly there's a plot hook there because unlike most of the DMs I've played with she never mentions extra details in order to flesh out the world. But my character doesn't know that. Do I metagame by giving my character OOC knowledge in order to chase down the DM's clumsily thrown plot hook - or do I roleplay what I would do?

From what you've described, it feels as if you learned from computer games - where objects you can interact with are highlighted (hence the "~--Stray Cat--~"). On the tabletop I can't see the "~--", so I'm not going to know you put it there, and the real world doesn't have it at all so even if I realise that you are trying to clue it I'm going to have to metagame with OOC knowledge to see it as a clue. If you were to have had the cat glowing with arcane energy (i.e. something I could spot in character), that would have been a different story.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Some nice observations there OP.

My preferred way of DM-ing is to give the characters some situations they can/should/must handle. How they handle them is up to the players. Sometimes they just get stuck doing nothing, if so I put up signposts, but otherwise I usually go along with their wacky ideas.

I prefer handing the characters several situations with a bit conflicting agendas/timing to make it more interesting. Quite a lot of players like to decide things, not so many are born investigators.

As a player I HATE investigations where you are supposed to follow small clues. It just isn't my thing. On the other hand I love making necessary and important decisions, which is reflected in my DM-style.

 

[Barastrondo]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I'd note that I've encountered several players who have been reticent about the call to adventure because, it seemed, they'd been "trained" by GMs who ran killer games to be very wary of anything potentially lethal. A game with a high lethality index can be awfully stressful to some players, and therefore they wind up being kind of reticent about stuff that looks like it could be highly lethal.

If you're looking to teach hesitant players to play more proactively, the most important element to establish is trust. Trust that "If I make a decision, the results will be fun and exciting." In some cases this may mean overcoming old scars, and reinforcing that of all the story hooks you throw out none of them are "trapped" -- which is to say, that if you have a choice between A, B or C that they're all generally viable. Some players have been taught to expect that maybe only B is the "correct" choice, as A will present a TPK and C will destroy the village while you're off wasting time. It's tricky, but reaching such players is a matter of teaching them that the game isn't won or lost at character creation, or based on the first choice you make. And similarly, some players don't trust their DMs to let the dice fall where they may, or to actually acknowledge that their choices are changing the environment.

Sandbox and linear games seem like diametric opposites, but they're almost identical in that they both totally rely on trust between the players and DM. A sandbox without trust breaks down in hesitancy; a linear game without trust disintegrates as players throw themselves in every direction but the main plot. And, of course, a DM who doesn't trust his players isn't going to enjoy the game at all.

Is it the players' responsibility to carry a story? Yeah, basically. But it's also the DM's responsibility to ensure that the players feel that they have that power, and that using that power is going to result in a fun session. If playing with friends who already trust your technique isn't an option, I'd say figuring out how to build that trust is a priority.

 

[Naszir]

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?

To me there needs to be some middle ground here. If the ring is important in some way then there should be some sort of detailed description. If it is not important the DM can allow the player to make up a description. Maybe somewhere further on in the campaign the DM can use what the player came up with. When players start to ask for detailed descriptions of every little tiny thing they come across it bogs the game down. If you are reading a book or watching a movie and there is something described in great detail but has nothing to do with the story it make no sense and you feel like you have just wasted time.

As for the stay cat. If there is some possibility that it could lead to a good side adventure make the cat memorable. It's not JUST a stray cat. Give it a detailed description. The stray cat may have a slight limp, strange markings, an odd color, its eyes are unusual etc. Give the players a reason to take interest in the cat.

Personally I am just not a quick enough thinker for the free form or sandbox style of play. For the most part I want players who want to stick together, be part of a group and bond. Character personality clashes can be great for role-play as long as they don't get out of hand. I love telling a story that has multiple lines feeding into it where the group is working towards a common goal but is also affecting each of them at an individual level. For this kind of involvement I need time to go through the complexities. Luckily I have a group of guys that meshes well with this play.

With sandboxing and free form I have never understood how a DM keeps all the variables and complexities straight without a lot of "hold on while I write that down" or "hold on, let me look that monster up". I can only imagine the inconsistences that can occur or the hooks that are forgotten or the detail that is missed.

Players and DMs need to be on the same page. That has to be established at the beginning of a campaign. Player's who decide to go off on their own when they are playing with a DM who is not comfortable with constant random side treks doesn't make the game fun for anyone.