As a direct result, I like games with neither plot nor any planned story. Sandbox, go wherever, do whatever.
In my experience, this doesn't work. Like, at all. When no one tells players what to do, eventually they stop doing anything.
I want to get around that. So far, I haven't been able to. I've made some decent attempts, but they all die eventually.
Whether as a GM or a player - what do you think it would take to make you play such a game, and stick with it?
I have one idea I haven't tried out yet (mostly because I only got it just now). The idea is to state right from the onset that any player, at any time, can make decisions for the whole group. Get a concensus from everyone on that: The first to post get's to pick the direction. And everyone else is obliged to roll with that.
Would that work for you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The challenge is the bystander effect and lack of centralisation of decision making.
Your solution would be fine for me in that I have no objections (unless it ends up with running around with headless chickens because the decision maker changes each time...and everyone wants to do different things rather than sticking with it). The issue is that people will often still be reluctant to take charge of the situation and be the one to say "yes".
I'm not sure how to resolve it. DoIP had notice boards that you could pick jobs from that worked well...but I'm not convinced that it would work long term. Generally, I've found that players want the illusion of agency, but really want to be lead to quests etc. The first chapter of RotFM worked really well, but it didn't take long until I had to point them to where to go next.
Personally, I'd go with the illusion of an open world. However, when it's time to get them to do another quest, wherever they are, have three (give or take) options. Make each option an obvious hook, then let them pick the hook. So for example, they're in a tavern. I'll point out three different patrons, each of which are doing something interesting, and showing approachability. The players see three different ways forward, then get to choose. It's not quite sandbox...but it's a good compromise that gives them a concrete and obvious way forward, but still gives them a choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A lot of it depends on your players. Not all groups are gonna work without clear direction.
The other thing is that they need a shove at the start. "You can go places and do things" isn't a plot hook.
In my current game (spelljammer), the initial setup was "This is a spelljammer game. Your characters from a normal world that's never heard of space travel have signed on as crew on a perfectly normal sailing vessel." It then flew into space, they had an initial encounter with refugee orc raiders, and reached a major trading hub. At that point, the ship's captain got a contract, sent them on a strange errand to hide something in the meantime, and they returned just in time to see him get murdered by his son.
They now have at least four immediate hooks: just doing shipping for money, the orc refugee situation, the thing they were sent to hide, and finding out what's up with the murder.
What they actually did: hatch a plan to raise the money to revive the captain, which was initially "do shipping", but with a directed goal. Since then, they've engaged with some hooks I've tossed at them, not with others. Some things they ignored have faded away, some developed into things they can't ignore forever, and some are still hanging around in the background.
The campaign I currently run was pretty much a sandbox built by the players. Session Zero, we went through a fun process of defining the immediate region with players deciding the bits and bobs. I then sewed them all together and figured out a good way to bring the players together. Since then, it has been very much player-decision run, but they did start to get bogged down at one point. To add a sense of urgency and push them along, I introduced a new antagonist that reminded them that larger things were afoot and the story could shift on a dime. Their slow-moving plans needed to get moving before someone else moved their plans for them.
What sort of antagonist? Well, long story short, they're in a city in crisis. Natural disaster. Peasant revolt. Neighboring cities vying to change the status quo. That all had the PCs plotting but not acting quickly. And then the dracolich did a flyby of the city, raining a bit of destruction on a few key locations, and roaring a warning to "not meddle in affairs beyond your understanding."
Suddenly, the PCs feel like they're on a timer and need to push ahead. Suddenly, the PCs follow up a lead I offered them three sessions earlier. Suddenly, the PCs are pushing into a location...that the PCs created in Session Zero as part of the sandbox THEY created.
I reinforce one of the core conceits of Dungeons & Dragons: The players must either grab plots their characters are interested in or launch new ones with the DM.
The game assumes that players will actively seek out something to do, and the DM will listen to them and serve up adventures suited to their interests.
tl;dr: People have to choose to engage deliberately.
If they don't, especially after a conversation about it, nothing will change.
To summarize what I just posted: Remember that the world doesn't stop just because the PCs have stalled out. There is ALWAYS something else going on somewhere. Don't wait for them to make a decision. Let someone else do something that reminds them that the world is "real" and "changing" under their feet. It doesn't have to be terribly dramatic to motivate them. It just needs to add urgency or sense of direction.
I reinforce one of the core conceits of Dungeons & Dragons: The players must either grab plots their characters are interested in or launch new ones with the DM.
My take tends to be: Here's a new game, the plot is something along these lines - please make a character who'd be interested in resolving that =)
What sort of antagonist? Well, long story short, they're in a city in crisis. Natural disaster. Peasant revolt. Neighboring cities vying to change the status quo. That all had the PCs plotting but not acting quickly. And then the dracolich did a flyby of the city, raining a bit of destruction on a few key locations, and roaring a warning to "not meddle in affairs beyond your understanding."
I did something vaguely similar once - the shaman of a goblin tribe had a vision of a coming apocalypse, and a group of scouts were sent to discover a new home for them. They arrive in a .... let's say mostly unsettled valley with lots of space and things to do - also a lot of enemies. It still stalled out.
The challenge is the bystander effect and lack of centralisation of decision making.
There shouldn't be a bystander effect - or, I don't feel so. Democracy is simply too slow, it kills games. If you wanna call the shots, you're free to do so.
Personally, I'd go with the illusion of an open world.
But I want the open world. I want agency in the hands of the players. Also for my sake: Their decision help me build my world - they always end up going somewhere unexpected, forcing me to ... create. Which is a good thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
But I want the open world. I want agency in the hands of the players. Also for my sake: Their decision help me build my world - they always end up going somewhere unexpected, forcing me to ... create. Which is a good thing.
The problem is that too many choices, with little information to distinguish which is better, results in analysis paralysis. This can be a problem even in the real world, but RPGs tend to magnify it because PCs have less information that people in the real world, and fewer external forces pushing them.
I think for a game you pretty much need to supply pressure: things should be happening that the PCs would want to respond to, and they have limited time to decide. It's not actually removing player agency to have a dragon attack or a neighboring kingdom invade, they have multiple choices for what they want to do about it, but it's providing motive. A few points to keep in mind:
Throw out enough plot seeds that the PCs can't do them all. "X, Y, and Z are available to do, but in the end you have to do them all, it's just your choice about order" doesn't give players much in the way of real choice, whereas "X, Y, and Z are available, but you can't do them all" gives them a choice.
Doing nothing, while an option, should be a fairly obviously inferior option; at least some plot seeds should have negative consequences if ignored. Not so negative that the PCs feel obligated to handle the plot -- if X has negative effects if ignored, and Y has positive effects if pursued, maybe they decide the positive effects of Y are worth the negative effects of ignoring X -- but enough that doing nothing isn't an appealing option.
There should be options with a sufficient range of apparent challenge that the PCs will think they can succeed at at least some, and don't decide to just hide.
If the PCs decide to follow none of the seeds and do something else instead... let them.
Ginny Di recommended it (video below), I purchased and read it. One of the best TTRPG purchases I have ever made, including several Wizards game books. It lays out clearly and in a readable, entertaining manner how to do what you want and have the players be the ones proactively driving the story. In essence, your players are used to playing a reactive story and you're used to running a reactive game - the GM creates plots, puts them in front of the players, and the players pick them up and respond. Not what you want in a sandbox. This book can teach you and your players both how to do sandbox in a way you'll remember for years - how to get your players to create the plots they want to play for you, without taking away your fun as the DM.
The problem is that too many choices, with little information to distinguish which is better, results in analysis paralysis. This can be a problem even in the real world, but RPGs tend to magnify it because PCs have less information that people in the real world, and fewer external forces pushing them.
I think for a game you pretty much need to supply pressure: things should be happening that the PCs would want to respond to, and they have limited time to decide. It's not actually removing player agency to have a dragon attack or a neighboring kingdom invade, they have multiple choices for what they want to do about it, but it's providing motive. A few points to keep in mind:
Throw out enough plot seeds that the PCs can't do them all. "X, Y, and Z are available to do, but in the end you have to do them all, it's just your choice about order" doesn't give players much in the way of real choice, whereas "X, Y, and Z are available, but you can't do them all" gives them a choice.
Doing nothing, while an option, should be a fairly obviously inferior option; at least some plot seeds should have negative consequences if ignored. Not so negative that the PCs feel obligated to handle the plot -- if X has negative effects if ignored, and Y has positive effects if pursued, maybe they decide the positive effects of Y are worth the negative effects of ignoring X -- but enough that doing nothing isn't an appealing option.
There should be options with a sufficient range of apparent challenge that the PCs will think they can succeed at at least some, and don't decide to just hide.
If the PCs decide to follow none of the seeds and do something else instead... let them.
The world is definitely moving around the PC's, whether they move or stand still. Plot hooks that aren't picked up will resolve themselves in some way, while those picked up will be resolved by the characters of course.
And I get what you're trying to say about analysis paralysis. Initially, I really just want players to pick the hook that they find the most interesting - or I want them to negotiate for the most attractive reward. After that, I see it as my job to provide enough information to make a choice. Although, in general, they just need to know that chosing A will have one set of consequences, while chosing B will have another. There aren't any moral judgements, just different outcomes.
In the game I'm playing right now - the one that's struggling, and the reason for this thread - they just chose not to help a caravan under attack. It loses them a trade opportunity and a future ally, but provides them with another trade opportunity (no really useful ally, though). This is a .... you know, a bottom tier dilemma, but it's just an example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Ginny Di recommended it (video below), I purchased and read it. One of the best TTRPG purchases I have ever made, including several Wizards game books. It lays out clearly and in a readable, entertaining manner how to do what you want and have the players be the ones proactively driving the story. In essence, your players are used to playing a reactive story and you're used to running a reactive game - the GM creates plots, puts them in front of the players, and the players pick them up and respond. Not what you want in a sandbox. This book can teach you and your players both how to do sandbox in a way you'll remember for years - how to get your players to create the plots they want to play for you, without taking away your fun as the DM.
Hm - thanks =)
This looks really interesting - however, from watching the video, I don't feel like this can be applied to play by post? Maybe that's just me, but that's the feeling I get. I'll still consider the book though, seems like a good and useful read.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
This looks really interesting - however, from watching the video, I don't feel like this can be applied to play by post? Maybe that's just me, but that's the feeling I get. I'll still consider the book though, seems like a good and useful read.
Having read the book directly, it can effortlessly be applied to play-by-post.
The primary message of the book is a change in character creation and a shift in priorities at the table. Part of chargen is players deciding on goals for their characters (which the book offers splendid guidance on writing), and the Dm creates adventures that give the players chances to further those goals. Or adventures that emerge from the consequences of their attempts to do so.
Doing so dramatically reduces prep time for the DM as well as reducing wasted prep. You don't have to create thirty-seven plot hooks and adventure seeds - your players tell you precisely what plot hooks they want to pursue by playing a character whose goals are pursuing those hooks. And when a character achieves a goal, whether it be a short, mid, or long-term goal, they replace that goal with a new one. If the character makes a discovery that would change their goals, they do that.
The system also does not preclude mixing in reactive adventures, as well - you can have a proactive, goal-oriented table and if a dragon suddenly attacks their home town they're going to respond to it. But you don't have to threaten something valuable to them every single time you want to give them an adventure hook. You don't have to invent every plot idea yourself, and your players don't have to pick and choose between prebaked plots hoping the DM successfully created something they care about.
The book fundamentally defines steps, processes, and methods by which you can do what you set out to do with your sandbox game - have the players take the initiative and decide on their own what stories, goals, and adventures to pursue. The book tells you and your players HOW to do that, in easily digestible, highly actionable steps. Cannot recommend enough for anyone who's ever been enchanted by the idea of a sandbox game but never managed to get anywhere trying to run one.
The challenge is the bystander effect and lack of centralisation of decision making.
There shouldn't be a bystander effect - or, I don't feel so. Democracy is simply too slow, it kills games. If you wanna call the shots, you're free to do so.
Yeah, play-by-post is gonna change the dynamics a lot. Nonetheless, the group does make a difference -- the one I'm running for is usually "let's do X" "yes, let's". They save the dithering for in-session decision making, not the "where do we go next?" part.
And open world games don't stay functionally open. As the players get into particular long-term plots, it turns into a more conventional structure. They could do anything, but they are gonna follow up the lead on the evil cult.
The system also does not preclude mixing in reactive adventures, as well - you can have a proactive, goal-oriented table and if a dragon suddenly attacks their home town they're going to respond to it. But you don't have to threaten something valuable to them every single time you want to give them an adventure hook.
Well, the main reason for threatening them, regardless of the details, is because they're not being active -- when the players seem to have run out of steam, have something happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So .. I like world building.
As a direct result, I like games with neither plot nor any planned story. Sandbox, go wherever, do whatever.
In my experience, this doesn't work. Like, at all. When no one tells players what to do, eventually they stop doing anything.
I want to get around that. So far, I haven't been able to. I've made some decent attempts, but they all die eventually.
Whether as a GM or a player - what do you think it would take to make you play such a game, and stick with it?
I have one idea I haven't tried out yet (mostly because I only got it just now). The idea is to state right from the onset that any player, at any time, can make decisions for the whole group. Get a concensus from everyone on that: The first to post get's to pick the direction. And everyone else is obliged to roll with that.
Would that work for you?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The challenge is the bystander effect and lack of centralisation of decision making.
Your solution would be fine for me in that I have no objections (unless it ends up with running around with headless chickens because the decision maker changes each time...and everyone wants to do different things rather than sticking with it). The issue is that people will often still be reluctant to take charge of the situation and be the one to say "yes".
I'm not sure how to resolve it. DoIP had notice boards that you could pick jobs from that worked well...but I'm not convinced that it would work long term. Generally, I've found that players want the illusion of agency, but really want to be lead to quests etc. The first chapter of RotFM worked really well, but it didn't take long until I had to point them to where to go next.
Personally, I'd go with the illusion of an open world. However, when it's time to get them to do another quest, wherever they are, have three (give or take) options. Make each option an obvious hook, then let them pick the hook. So for example, they're in a tavern. I'll point out three different patrons, each of which are doing something interesting, and showing approachability. The players see three different ways forward, then get to choose. It's not quite sandbox...but it's a good compromise that gives them a concrete and obvious way forward, but still gives them a choice.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A lot of it depends on your players. Not all groups are gonna work without clear direction.
The other thing is that they need a shove at the start. "You can go places and do things" isn't a plot hook.
In my current game (spelljammer), the initial setup was "This is a spelljammer game. Your characters from a normal world that's never heard of space travel have signed on as crew on a perfectly normal sailing vessel." It then flew into space, they had an initial encounter with refugee orc raiders, and reached a major trading hub. At that point, the ship's captain got a contract, sent them on a strange errand to hide something in the meantime, and they returned just in time to see him get murdered by his son.
They now have at least four immediate hooks: just doing shipping for money, the orc refugee situation, the thing they were sent to hide, and finding out what's up with the murder.
What they actually did: hatch a plan to raise the money to revive the captain, which was initially "do shipping", but with a directed goal. Since then, they've engaged with some hooks I've tossed at them, not with others. Some things they ignored have faded away, some developed into things they can't ignore forever, and some are still hanging around in the background.
The campaign I currently run was pretty much a sandbox built by the players. Session Zero, we went through a fun process of defining the immediate region with players deciding the bits and bobs. I then sewed them all together and figured out a good way to bring the players together. Since then, it has been very much player-decision run, but they did start to get bogged down at one point. To add a sense of urgency and push them along, I introduced a new antagonist that reminded them that larger things were afoot and the story could shift on a dime. Their slow-moving plans needed to get moving before someone else moved their plans for them.
What sort of antagonist? Well, long story short, they're in a city in crisis. Natural disaster. Peasant revolt. Neighboring cities vying to change the status quo. That all had the PCs plotting but not acting quickly. And then the dracolich did a flyby of the city, raining a bit of destruction on a few key locations, and roaring a warning to "not meddle in affairs beyond your understanding."
Suddenly, the PCs feel like they're on a timer and need to push ahead. Suddenly, the PCs follow up a lead I offered them three sessions earlier. Suddenly, the PCs are pushing into a location...that the PCs created in Session Zero as part of the sandbox THEY created.
I reinforce one of the core conceits of Dungeons & Dragons: The players must either grab plots their characters are interested in or launch new ones with the DM.
The game assumes that players will actively seek out something to do, and the DM will listen to them and serve up adventures suited to their interests.
tl;dr: People have to choose to engage deliberately.
If they don't, especially after a conversation about it, nothing will change.
To summarize what I just posted: Remember that the world doesn't stop just because the PCs have stalled out. There is ALWAYS something else going on somewhere. Don't wait for them to make a decision. Let someone else do something that reminds them that the world is "real" and "changing" under their feet. It doesn't have to be terribly dramatic to motivate them. It just needs to add urgency or sense of direction.
My take tends to be: Here's a new game, the plot is something along these lines - please make a character who'd be interested in resolving that =)
I did something vaguely similar once - the shaman of a goblin tribe had a vision of a coming apocalypse, and a group of scouts were sent to discover a new home for them. They arrive in a .... let's say mostly unsettled valley with lots of space and things to do - also a lot of enemies. It still stalled out.
In my experience: No groups work well over time without a trails of breadcrumbs to follow. This is mostly pbp, but my tabletop group isn't any better.
There shouldn't be a bystander effect - or, I don't feel so. Democracy is simply too slow, it kills games. If you wanna call the shots, you're free to do so.
But I want the open world. I want agency in the hands of the players. Also for my sake: Their decision help me build my world - they always end up going somewhere unexpected, forcing me to ... create. Which is a good thing.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The problem is that too many choices, with little information to distinguish which is better, results in analysis paralysis. This can be a problem even in the real world, but RPGs tend to magnify it because PCs have less information that people in the real world, and fewer external forces pushing them.
I think for a game you pretty much need to supply pressure: things should be happening that the PCs would want to respond to, and they have limited time to decide. It's not actually removing player agency to have a dragon attack or a neighboring kingdom invade, they have multiple choices for what they want to do about it, but it's providing motive. A few points to keep in mind:
Very strongly recommend the Game Master's Handbook of Proactive Roleplaying.
Ginny Di recommended it (video below), I purchased and read it. One of the best TTRPG purchases I have ever made, including several Wizards game books. It lays out clearly and in a readable, entertaining manner how to do what you want and have the players be the ones proactively driving the story. In essence, your players are used to playing a reactive story and you're used to running a reactive game - the GM creates plots, puts them in front of the players, and the players pick them up and respond. Not what you want in a sandbox. This book can teach you and your players both how to do sandbox in a way you'll remember for years - how to get your players to create the plots they want to play for you, without taking away your fun as the DM.
Please do not contact or message me.
The world is definitely moving around the PC's, whether they move or stand still. Plot hooks that aren't picked up will resolve themselves in some way, while those picked up will be resolved by the characters of course.
And I get what you're trying to say about analysis paralysis. Initially, I really just want players to pick the hook that they find the most interesting - or I want them to negotiate for the most attractive reward. After that, I see it as my job to provide enough information to make a choice. Although, in general, they just need to know that chosing A will have one set of consequences, while chosing B will have another. There aren't any moral judgements, just different outcomes.
In the game I'm playing right now - the one that's struggling, and the reason for this thread - they just chose not to help a caravan under attack. It loses them a trade opportunity and a future ally, but provides them with another trade opportunity (no really useful ally, though). This is a .... you know, a bottom tier dilemma, but it's just an example.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Hm - thanks =)
This looks really interesting - however, from watching the video, I don't feel like this can be applied to play by post? Maybe that's just me, but that's the feeling I get. I'll still consider the book though, seems like a good and useful read.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Having read the book directly, it can effortlessly be applied to play-by-post.
The primary message of the book is a change in character creation and a shift in priorities at the table. Part of chargen is players deciding on goals for their characters (which the book offers splendid guidance on writing), and the Dm creates adventures that give the players chances to further those goals. Or adventures that emerge from the consequences of their attempts to do so.
Doing so dramatically reduces prep time for the DM as well as reducing wasted prep. You don't have to create thirty-seven plot hooks and adventure seeds - your players tell you precisely what plot hooks they want to pursue by playing a character whose goals are pursuing those hooks. And when a character achieves a goal, whether it be a short, mid, or long-term goal, they replace that goal with a new one. If the character makes a discovery that would change their goals, they do that.
The system also does not preclude mixing in reactive adventures, as well - you can have a proactive, goal-oriented table and if a dragon suddenly attacks their home town they're going to respond to it. But you don't have to threaten something valuable to them every single time you want to give them an adventure hook. You don't have to invent every plot idea yourself, and your players don't have to pick and choose between prebaked plots hoping the DM successfully created something they care about.
The book fundamentally defines steps, processes, and methods by which you can do what you set out to do with your sandbox game - have the players take the initiative and decide on their own what stories, goals, and adventures to pursue. The book tells you and your players HOW to do that, in easily digestible, highly actionable steps. Cannot recommend enough for anyone who's ever been enchanted by the idea of a sandbox game but never managed to get anywhere trying to run one.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, play-by-post is gonna change the dynamics a lot. Nonetheless, the group does make a difference -- the one I'm running for is usually "let's do X" "yes, let's". They save the dithering for in-session decision making, not the "where do we go next?" part.
And open world games don't stay functionally open. As the players get into particular long-term plots, it turns into a more conventional structure. They could do anything, but they are gonna follow up the lead on the evil cult.
Well, the main reason for threatening them, regardless of the details, is because they're not being active -- when the players seem to have run out of steam, have something happen.