TheRPGSite

(over on the Big Purple as well)

Coming from another thread of mine, I've got it in my head that a more sandboxy, "lazy GM" style would be more fitting for me and the frustrations I've had vis-a-vis group attendance and people being honest about what they'll commit to.

For this thread, assume I know how to run a sandbox and follow the laxy gm style (I'll be reading those threads later today, for example). With this in mind, one of the jobs of a GM is to "train" his group for a particular game. It can be mechanics and the like, which is usual, but it's also a style thing.

So, the question is, what needs to be told to a group to get the sandbox play style? How to get them used to the idea when they've never done it before? How to get them into having, say, character goals that they then go for in terms of the entire campaign? To not necessarily look for some giant plot to follow?

For 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). Assume that I'm flexible on this definition though - it'll be my first time running such a game, so, feel free to throw advice and the like on how sandboxy it can be.

In any case, though, I'm interested. How to train them?

Quote from: StanTheMan;536320In any case, though, I'm interested. How to train them?

The biggest reason sandbox campaign fail is lack of context. Context is need so that players can make meaningful decisions for their characters. Without an initial context the player might as well throw darts at a board for all the meaning their decisions have. In my experience most players dislike that situation intensely and why it is why many sandbox campaigns fail.

The best way I found to overcome this is through a pre-game. The referee sits down with each player one on one and runs through a mini-session where they do some talking, some back and forth, and perhaps a little roleplaying. The end result is a personal background for the character and the player understand the basic background of the campaign.  The personal background will define the initial context for the character which allows the player to make meaningful choices about his character.

The job of the referee during this is to TEACH the player the basic background of the setting. How much and what to ever varies based on the type of campaign and the personal taste of the referee and his group.

The same with the personal background of the character. With this the referee should encourage the player talk about what he wants to accomplish in general terms using stereotypes of the genre. The referee then works with him to refine it and fit it into the setting.

This is not an involved process and even can be done informally as part of normal everyday conversation with your friends and gaming buddies. The lead question is generally "So what do you want be in the new campaign."

What important is that you, the referee do it and you make notes to use during the sessions. Specific recommendations I have is that you manipulate the player into create a background that give natural reasons for the party to be together. That when you and the player have a choice about something in the character's background pick the more interesting one that is still plausible, rather than the one that is most probable.

The players have to be invested in the setting just as much as their characters because it is their actions, through their characters, that drive the play in a sandbox game.  Cementing this investment by the players can be accomplished through estar's excellent advice.  Player investment in the setting can be on two levels: the character's POV, or the setting itself.

Some players like to have detailed character backgrounds completed and thought out before they ever play their character.  However, other players like to just create a bare-bones character and let the character's background, personality, and motivations unfold as the character is actually played in game sessions.  Both approaches are equally valid, but you will have to cater to each of these type of players.  In order to do so, you must provide a campaign or setting primer that is tantalizing enough to spark the interest of either type of player.  In other words, you must have enough setting detail up front to spark a buy-in from the front-load players.

Sometimes, casual players can be turned into very engaged ones but not very often. Someone who just wants to hang out, socialize, roll some dice and whatnot isn't very likely to write backgrounds or engage with the setting much no matter what you do.

On the plus side, casuals are easy to run for because they aren't that picky. On the downside, not having anyone else in the group but you really give a rats ass about the campaign can leave you feeling lonely in a good sized group of people.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;536353Sometimes, casual players can be turned into very engaged ones but not very often. Someone who just wants to hang out, socialize, roll some dice and whatnot isn't very likely to write backgrounds or engage with the setting much no matter what you do.

That why you do a pre-game, you use the social aspect to your advantage. Also the process is meant to find a place for the player's character in the setting regardless of temperament. Sometimes it just simple greed, "I want a cool sword" type of stuff. Then you can explain where to find some "cool swords" and now the player can contribute his opinion on what the party should be doing.

It can be elaborate or not as circumstances dictate. The only absolute is that the referee does the pre-game and relays the needed background to start the player out on achieve his "goals" however simple or elaborate they may be.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;536353On the plus side, casuals are easy to run for because they aren't that picky. On the downside, not having anyone else in the group but you really give a rats ass about the campaign can leave you feeling lonely in a good sized group of people.

Indeed they are not picky and often they are happy perusing a stereotypical fantasy trope. Typically finding some particular type of treasure or doing something in particular. But you don't know what it is until you talk them, and they don't know how to start doing X in your setting until you tell them.

Quote from: StanTheMan;536320So, the question is, what needs to be told to a group to get the sandbox play style? How to get them used to the idea when they've never done it before? How to get them into having, say, character goals that they then go for in terms of the entire campaign? To not necessarily look for some giant plot to follow.

The best way to go about it is for the characters to have a generic goal at the start of the game. The basic assumption of the D&D game that level 1 characters are basically searching to explore the unknown or get missions to strike it rich and not die trying is basically the mother of all goals here.

Then you just let them interact with the world you prepared. They might search for work, revert to the classic of going to the tavern to see if someone's looking for adventurers, go to the market place to hear about the recent news from the town cryer, ask merchants or the guard whether they need some mercenary job done for them. Then you just role play the environment, and let things unfold where they may. That's the pleasure of RPGs right there.

Another alternative is to start them with a pretty clear goal, like say, they start the game with a map of unknown origins that seems pretty valuable, that one of the PCs mentors gave to them before s/he died. This will basically plug them into a specific exploration site like a mega-dungeon say, and get the campaign rolling from there. They'll try to find what the map is, what kind of thing it says, maybe decipher it if it is written in a unknown language, consult sages to try to find its provenance, find out how it alludes to "riches in the depths down there" and "great dangers lying ahead", might want to hire some help, carriers, men at arms whatnot... that's basically the base situation that gets the ball rolling and from there they do whatever they want, including possibly burning the map, selling it to someone who then might become rich and cause trouble in town, have the sage try to steal the map for himself by hiring thieves to do the dirty job for him... whatever the case may be.

The Pre-Game thing is good advice too. That's something I do systematically with players as well. Whether it's an actual game session or just a social gathering talking about the game we're going to play, the kind of characters involved, how they might know each other, what the players want out of the game, what I'd like to do with the game, etc. We bounce ideas back and forth, create characters, have a basic idea about their backgrounds, and from there, players and PCs being ready, we game. It ensures that everybody's playing the same game and understands the way it's supposed to operate. There's nothing worth than having a bunch of passive players in a sandbox that just don't understand what they're supposed to do in the first place (which is: actually play an adventurer and go out there and explore, get curious about stuff, get in trouble, whatnot).

Quote from: estar;536362That why you do a pre-game, you use the social aspect to your advantage. Also the process is meant to find a place for the player's character in the setting regardless of temperament. Sometimes it just simple greed, "I want a cool sword" type of stuff. Then you can explain where to find some "cool swords" and now the player can contribute his opinion on what the party should be doing.

It can be elaborate or not as circumstances dictate. The only absolute is that the referee does the pre-game and relays the needed background to start the player out on achieve his "goals" however simple or elaborate they may be.




Indeed they are not picky and often they are happy perusing a stereotypical fantasy trope. Typically finding some particular type of treasure or doing something in particular. But you don't know what it is until you talk them, and they don't know how to start doing X in your setting until you tell them.

Good points, but do not underestimate the power of apathy. In our little bubble here on gaming messageboards we are in constant contact with other people fairly well engaged in the hobby.

Based on the OP and the other related thread it sounds like a possible case of a group of casual gamers. These are more common than our messageboard communities realize.

Joe Blow the casual gamer doesn't have an account on messageboards like this one. He games occasionally perhaps when his dating life is in a lull. He will cancel fairly often and ditch the game for something he finds more interesting. When he does attend then its more to hang out than to actually play. The chances of him thinking about the game away from the table are close to zero.

If you find yourself running games for a group of these guys then you can either play lighthearted beer & pretzel style games with them, find more engaged gamers for your core group, or go insane trying to get them to invest in the setting. Take your pick.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;536372If you find yourself running games for a group of these guys then you can either play lighthearted beer & pretzel style games with them, find more engaged gamers for your core group, or go insane trying to get them to invest in the setting. Take your pick.

Start them in media res, right in the middle of the dungeon. Their characters have just been victims of a trap that wiped out their memories. They have an inkling about their names, some rememberance of their past, but beyond that, nothing. They don't know how they got there, where the exit is, etc.

There. You are technically playing a (dungeon) sandbox. You just started them in situation, with a bunch of stuff to do from there (survive, explore, understand what got them there, what the hell is going on, etc.). It's just a matter of playing the situation from there, along with you managing the dungeon, the monsters living nearby etc. It's cool, casual, and it's great fun, because the players can take it from there and roll with it however they want.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;536372If you find yourself running games for a group of these guys then you can either play lighthearted beer & pretzel style games with them, find more engaged gamers for your core group, or go insane trying to get them to invest in the setting. Take your pick.

The 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.

So how anything happen in a sandbox campaign if the group is largely passive? Well that where World in Motion comes into play. Passive gamers spend more time responding to the events that occur around them than groups with more active players. Often these events are sources of opportunities (i.e. missions and rumors) that lead to adventures even for passive gamers.

The way to think of this is to think how your friends, family, and acquaintances react to things throughout life. Some are very active and going out there to create opportunities for themselves. Others are passive and more or less let life happen to them. Between those extremes there a lot of way people mix things up to how they approach things.  It no different with a sandbox campaign and gamers.  Except that as a referee you should not be a blind simulator but rather striving to pick the most interesting alternatives out of the different possibilities. After all we are playing Dungeons & Dragons not Papers and Paychecks.

Quote from: StanTheMan;536320In any case, though, I'm interested. How to train them?

Shock collars.

Interesting 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?

Personally, I would probably only pitched 3-5 ideas to the players, and those choices are based upon the knowledge you have of your players' and group preferences.  Anymore than 5 choices will probably cause two crappy situations:

1.  Too many choices will cause brain-freeze in the players and you'll get a blank stare, 'I don't know,' or 'cool, whatever.'

2.  Cause endless debate which will degenerate into arguments over canon or dogma for proposed settings.

I keep seeing the title of this thread and think it says 'group tanning'. haha  In keeping with that theme, take up the whole game and locate at the beach.  Be sure to have the players pack the cooler and use a bamboo throw rather than a blanket.  Getting everyone out of the same-old can take drastic measures!  I suggest one of the more out of the way beaches to reduce pedestrians, or you can hoof it up the beach, but keep an eye out on the distance to facilities.  Use a concise game in one three ring binder with sheet protectors, of course.  A small dice rolling box no larger than a portable backgammon box is also a good idea.  This works best with groups of 3 to 5 people.  It is usually good to stake out a burn pit, if one is available, for the evening after the gaming and sun.

I'm generally not in favor of group Tarrings.

RPGpundit

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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2111/roleplaying-games/ptolus-running-the-campaign-designing-character-backgrounds-part-2). (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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/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.