Stan, I'm at the breakfast table with my small boy on the iPad.  Not my fav medium, but I felt compelled.

Fist off, I have the experience, like a few others on this thread.  You do have a bunch of truly talented posters on this thread.  

But in the beginning of your OP is this comment about shifting to a 'lazy sandbox style'.  Can you help me with that?   Because to do a sandbox properly is the most prep intensive GM style of game to run.

Yes, because of the level of experience on the thread, many can do it with one hand tied behind behind their back....because they've (we've) done it for decades.   But to make a new sandbox campaign truly immersive and engaging, in my experience, requires more prep and forethought.  

Everything Ben, estar and the others talk about creating player investiture through background and motivation depends on tying these factors to an engaging and carefully thought out setting and ruleset.  

Or so I see it.  Maybe more later.

Quote from: LordVreeg;536745Stan, I'm at the breakfast table with my small boy on the iPad.  Not my fav medium, but I felt compelled.

Fist off, I have the experience, like a few others on this thread.  You do have a bunch of truly talented posters on this thread.  

But in the beginning of your OP is this comment about shifting to a 'lazy sandbox style'.  Can you help me with that?   Because to do a sandbox properly is the most prep intensive GM style of game to run.

Yes, because of the level of experience on the thread, many can do it with one hand tied behind behind their back....because they've (we've) done it for decades.   But to make a new sandbox campaign truly immersive and engaging, in my experience, requires more prep and forethought.  

Everything Ben, estar and the others talk about creating player investiture through background and motivation depends on tying these factors to an engaging and carefully thought out setting and ruleset.  

Or so I see it.  Maybe more later.

I agree.  I am running one now, trying to make it large in scope with many variables for the freedom of action the players want to have, and it takes a shit-ton of prep work.

Quote from: StanTheMan;536410Interesting stuff folks. Please, keep it coming!

At the moment, thinking over what's been said here. As always, a sit down talk is needed.

However, before that, I would like to get some player buy-in to a game idea BEFORE we sit down at the table. Then we can discuss it some more, then make characters, and do a little intro adventure thingy.

So, naturally, I'm choosing systems with quick character generation (which, again, means Burning whatever and FATE are right out - I've never seen anyone make a quick character in either system, ever).

In any case, for a sandbox to work, would you pitch the ideas first, let them choose a system and setting that seems interesting (say, making 203 pitches), and then sit down for a "normalization" chat, then make characters and off you go? Or how to approach it?

Umm.
Backward.  In my opinion, at least.  I can see you are trying to synergize with them before doing the settting work, so I'll bend some of my normal ideas around, as I have this crazy viewpoint that GM creative investiture is worth a lot.  

But do NOT choose a game system or let them choose a game system until you decide what type of game and setting that you are going to build for them.


Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."


Corrollary to Vreeg's First Rule.
"The amount of rules given to a certain dimension of an RPG partially dictate what kind of game the rules will create.  If 80% of the rulebook is written about thieves and the underworld, the game that those rules are meant for is thieving and skullduggery.  If 80% of the mechanics are based on combat, the game will revolve around combat.


Multiply this by 10 if the reward system is based in the same subject area as the proponderance of rules."


2nd Corrollary.
"Character growth is the greatest reinforcer.  The syntheses of pride in achievement with improvement in the character provides over 50% of the reinforcement in playing the game.  Rules that involve these factors are the most powerful in the game."

Simply put, I believe that the meshing of system and setting and game style is critical to the feel and enjoyment of the game.  I've seen too many games where the interesting parts of the setting were not buttressed by the choice of system; a thin, easily pieced veneer with no internal underpinnings.  

So, circling back...
I personally would want the GM to find out what really intrigues him first, because if you aren't into it, the players will feel it quickly.  So figure out your real preferences first.

Then come up with some 5-10 themes, with a couple different playstyles, out of that, and share those with them over beer or wine or chips or snacks.  See what they like out of those an encourage them to run with the ideas a bit and go a little afield, so you know what they want to get out of it.

Then worry about system.

Quote from: StanTheMan;536320For sandbox, I'm using a basic definition of "game where the GM doesn't necessarily have a plot, but where a world/setting has been prepared, the character's roles defined within that world, but what happens next is up to them." (is that right, anyway? That's what's in my head).

That's a pretty good definition.

Another way of thinking about a sandbox is that it's a campaign where the players choose and/or create the scenario.

If you look at the exact opposite of a sandbox, for example, you've got a campaign where the GM says, "I bought Castle of the Blood Lich, so that's what we're playing tonight."

A sandbox campaign, on the other hand, allows the players to not only choose which scenario they want to engage, but to also proactively apply their own goals and effectively create their own scenario.

In terms of actual execution, the sandbox will probably be organic enough that the distinction between the two will be heavily blurred.

QuoteHow to get them into having, say, character goals that they then go for in terms of the entire campaign?

There are two parts to this.

First, collaborate with the players in order to create characters who are tied into the reality of the campaign world and who are also strongly motivated within that campaign world. For a lengthy discussion of how I manage this process in my own campaign, click here. (Note that the discussion there isn't limited to sandbox campaigns.)

If you want to make this a bit more formal, just ask the players to define 2-3 goals for themselves. For example, in D&D you might even have them complete statements like, "By 5th level I will have..."

Second, it's a really, really good idea to have at least one default goal supported by at least one default action. This is something I talk about at greater length in Game Structures, but the basic idea is that you want a default position/activity that the campaign can fall back on if the PCs aren't motivated or interested in doing anything else.

For example, in the classic hexcrawl campaign structure the default goal is "exploration" and the default action is "pick a direction and go".

If the PCs have something specific they want to achieve; great. If they don't, then the default action of the hexcrawl will give them something to do until they've accumulated enough context in order to start wanting something specific.

Quote from: LordVreeg;536745But in the beginning of your OP is this comment about shifting to a 'lazy sandbox style'.  Can you help me with that?   Because to do a sandbox properly is the most prep intensive GM style of game to run.

IME, sandbox campaigns require a lot more upfront prep. But once they're up and running, the prep load becomes very light compared to other campaign forms.

Quote from: estar;536404The misconception here is about the nature of the sandbox campaign. Sandbox campaigns are campaigns where the players drive the plot. Sounds very proactive doesn't it? But that not implied by the premise. Players drive the plot as much as by their inaction as their actions. A sandbox campaign campaign unfolds differently with casual players than it does with proactive players. But in the end both groups are driving the campaign by their choices.

Great definition. Sandbox doesn't mean the world stands still and the players simply beat on it when they want it to squeal.

It can be a shock to players who are accustomed to plot heavy / railroady play.

Quote from: Lynn;538191Great definition. Sandbox doesn't mean the world stands still and the players simply beat on it when they want it to squeal.

It can be a shock to players who are accustomed to plot heavy / railroady play.

Quite true. There are people who seem to expect or demand that things not happen until either they are good and ready to make it happen or to witness it, or until some sense of "plot" they have in their heads demands it.  In those cases, I wonder if those people behave the same way about real life as well as emulated life.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;538378Quite true. There are people who seem to expect or demand that things not happen until either they are good and ready to make it happen or to witness it, or until some sense of "plot" they have in their heads demands it.  In those cases, I wonder if those people behave the same way about real life as well as emulated life.

RPGPundit

Yeah, my campaigns are not full sandbox generally, but I never liked the idea of things happening just when the players happen to show up. You start to feel like a spectator as a player when everytime you rescue the princess it is just in the nick of time (it didn't really matter that you blew three days getting lost in the forest, you were going to save her in the nick of time anyways).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;538379Yeah, my campaigns are not full sandbox generally, but I never liked the idea of things happening just when the players happen to show up. You start to feel like a spectator as a player when everytime you rescue the princess it is just in the nick of time (it didn't really matter that you blew three days getting lost in the forest, you were going to save her in the nick of time anyways).

and in long term campaigns, it is helpful wehn you do keep strict track of time and they are late.  Teaches them lessons for down the road.  Better to be on time and partially prepared than be late and be absolutely ready to join into something that was finihsed 3 hours before, as my peeps have learned.

Quote from: Lynn;538191Great definition. Sandbox doesn't mean the world stands still and the players simply beat on it when they want it to squeal.

It can be a shock to players who are accustomed to plot heavy / railroady play.

Thanks for the compliment. TheRPGSite talked about it before here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17326) LordVreeg even coined a useful term "World in Motion" to describe the broad concept. I blog about it here. (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/05/worlds-in-motion.html)

Quote from: estar;538603Thanks for the compliment. TheRPGSite talked about it before here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17326) LordVreeg even coined a useful term "World in Motion" to describe the broad concept. I blog about it here. (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/05/worlds-in-motion.html)

We all synergize.  Tomorrow night I play my group with the greatest use of same, since they are playing in my most consistently played and updated locale.