I've gotten better at doing a sandbox-style Vampire Dark Ages game (which was easy because I was horrible), but I still think I'm not preparing right.

What I do now is come up with repercussions from things that happened in the last session, then a couple of traditional situation + obstacle plots, instead of my initial model of "Prince as Quest-giver" which didn't work well.

However, this still doesn't get the players to DO anything or follow up on any of these things. If I actually go after the players, they'll respond to that situation, but that's kind of it.

I think sandbox prep is fundamentally different than what I do. Can some one point me to instructions (a book, your own advice) on how to do it?

Why don't you just lay out some thoughts here. What happened in the last session? What repercussions are you considering?

Rather than deal with a book that deals with the situation abstractly, you can draw on the collective wisdom of the Internet. We just need a little more of an idea of what is going on to give advice though.

If going after your players is the only way to get them to move, then do it. A sandbox should be a living organism, not a world that stays frozen in Amber until the players do something. NPCs can carry out their plots, wars can break out, new NPCs can show up. What makes it a sandbox is that players have a lot of freedom in how they respond to things.

A good sandbox should be active enough that whenever the players are at a loss to do something, you should have someone else do something. Eventually, the players will start doing interesting things of their own, or your players are losers and you are wasting your time.

That's my generic advice. If you give more details, I will try to be more specific.

I think you may simply have players that are there to be entertained by you.

If you are preparing things for them to explore and interact with, then that is sandbox play.  Even if they ignore it and are looking for you to force something interesting to happen.

Have you told them, flat out, that it is part of their responsibility to fully engage with what's going on in the game?  I know we might be retreading ground covered in previous threads though.

A good sandbox doesn't have to be big, but it should be dense with adventuring possibilities. Just think of a town, a nearby forest, maybe an old keep and some minor mountains. The amount of detail you can put inside just these few things is staggering. Make your players stumble upon adventure hooks wherever they go, they don't have to follow each of them, but they will follow some. Also, intertwinement is key - the Duke in the keep is secretly in love with the maid in the town, who has one night been caught by the giant in the mountains, the forester deep in the woods has seen it, but he again has no good relationship with the duke and so on. You can add layer upon layer.

Quote from: NathanIW;847091I think you may simply have players that are there to be entertained by you.

This is the biggest problem with a lot of players nowadays. They expect "the adventure" to be an amusement park ride, in which they just sit and passively enjoy.

Enough railroad, plot driven adventures can condition players to have these expectations. The game system being used can also play a role in player attitudes.

One of the reasons sandbox play worked so well in original D&D was the reward & XP system. The goal of play was to acquire treasure and thereby grow in personal power & influence. Rumors of undiscovered treasures somewhere was the motivating factor for players to be proactive and get out there looking for it.

If not treasure, then something needs to exist in a game to drive players to seek it out. A purely plot driven game without any "carrot" to entice players to go do things is often going to result in the PCs waiting around for something to happen to them because that is a surefire way to know that what they are engaging with matters.

When looking to design a sandbox style setup, think about the opportunities you will provide for adventure, then from the players perspective, think about why they would go after these opportunities, both from a player and character POV.

Try having a session where nothing happens.

Seriously.  If you ask each player what they're doing, and each one says "nothing," then say "nothing happens."

And sit there totally silent.

If you can bear to do so for five minutes, it will transform your game.  Either the players will realize that they need to do something, or you will realize that they aren't really interested in playing.

I'm completely, totally serious.  Don't initiate the action, make the players do it.  And the best way to make them do it is to refuse to do it for them.

I will never again run a game that doesn't come with a built in core activity, have a mechanical driver for players, or have the players agree to a core activity up front.

Fate Core, Gumeshoe, and nWoD 2 all have great mechanisms that encourage players to engage:
- Fate Core - Aspect Compels
- Gumeshoe - I don't remember what it's called, but you have to define for your character WHY he/she does the core activity
- nWoD 2 - players get XP for pursuing short, medium, and long term goals, which they define each session.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847180Try having a session where nothing happens.

Seriously.  If you ask each player what they're doing, and each one says "nothing," then say "nothing happens."

And sit there totally silent.

If you can bear to do so for five minutes, it will transform your game.  Either the players will realize that they need to do something, or you will realize that they aren't really interested in playing.

I'm completely, totally serious.  Don't initiate the action, make the players do it.  And the best way to make them do it is to refuse to do it for them.

Haha, this is pure gold.

But yeah, the basic fundamental of sandbox is player-driven gameplay. So the players must be proactive, design their own goals, and take the initiative. If your players are not showing any sign of that, then perhaps they do not like the sandbox style.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847180Try having a session where nothing happens.

Seriously.  If you ask each player what they're doing, and each one says "nothing," then say "nothing happens."

And sit there totally silent.

If you can bear to do so for five minutes, it will transform your game.  Either the players will realize that they need to do something, or you will realize that they aren't really interested in playing.

I'm completely, totally serious.  Don't initiate the action, make the players do it.  And the best way to make them do it is to refuse to do it for them.

This man speaks wisdom. I've used this technique, and it works.

Just because a game offers freedom of action, doesn't mean no one in the world is interested in the PCs, unless the PCs are really that inactive and/or dull or off-putting.

There can still be ongoing events for them to observe, and friends and relatives and perhaps employers or others who will come talk to them and perhaps invite them to do something or other.

Even though I'd say I generally run sandbox or at least free-choice games, I still tend to have several things going on that will tend to give the players input unless they go hide someplace. My PCs tend to have or make friends who are either proactive adventurers themselves, or who have ideas for things the PCs might do, or the PCs have patrons who will want them to do more or less interesting things sometimes, or negative / strange people or groups will give them things to think about and react to, or not. Most characters who have any sort of interesting abilities also tend to have interesting backgrounds and/or relationships that explain how they got them. The good warrior was trained by someone who sometimes has uses/needs for a warrior. The person with spy skills was trained by people who want to use them for purposes. The wizard was trained by a guild which attracts many people wanting wizards to do things, or which has agendas of its own and comes up with interesting things for wizards to do or care about. The well-off character without an employer has various well-off relatives who have interests and social intrigues, and attracts suitors. Anyone going about town looking out of the ordinary may attract interesting people looking for interesting people...

Often in our sandbox games, there is a lot going on, and just avoiding the worst of it can be a challenging adventure in itself! So can just deciding to go explore a town, or return to an interesting one.

If/when PCs do have nothing interesting going on, and want a vacation, we can roleplay them just checking out wherever they are and enjoying themselves, which always includes descriptions or people and places and events, and tends to get players interested in doing something. Usually my players decide to mess around, and/or pursue their own agendas, fairly readily. They want special training, money, stuff, relationships, fun, or to explore new places and meet new people, or to cause trouble (burglary, brawls, starting riots for fun and profit...).

Quote from: PencilBoy99;847080I've gotten better at doing a sandbox-style Vampire Dark Ages game (which was easy because I was horrible), but I still think I'm not preparing right.

What I do now is come up with repercussions from things that happened in the last session, then a couple of traditional situation + obstacle plots, instead of my initial model of "Prince as Quest-giver" which didn't work well.

Sounds as though you are doing the right things.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;847080However, this still doesn't get the players to DO anything or follow up on any of these things. If I actually go after the players, they'll respond to that situation, but that's kind of it.

Some players are like that. It took me 5 or 6 years to get my current group to fully embrace the idea that they could drive the plots rather than reacting.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;847080I think sandbox prep is fundamentally different than what I do. Can some one point me to instructions (a book, your own advice) on how to do it?

Don't get too hung up on terms and definitions.

So, your game isn't a sandbox and isn't linear and isn't whatever. So what?

If the players enjoy it and you enjoy it, then who cares what kind of game it is? If you want to define it, then define it as "Your Game" or "A good game".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847180Try having a session where nothing happens.

Seriously.  If you ask each player what they're doing, and each one says "nothing," then say "nothing happens."

And sit there totally silent.

If you can bear to do so for five minutes, it will transform your game.  Either the players will realize that they need to do something, or you will realize that they aren't really interested in playing.

I'm completely, totally serious.  Don't initiate the action, make the players do it.  And the best way to make them do it is to refuse to do it for them.

This has been the solution I've used rarely in the past to get players not used to understanding sandbox style play to engage.

Getting to the OP's original point - "going after them" in regards to what they did last session is very much part of sandbox style play. Cause and effect.

Just be fair about it. And don't be squeamish about the results.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847180Try having a session where nothing happens.

Seriously.  If you ask each player what they're doing, and each one says "nothing," then say "nothing happens."

And sit there totally silent.

If you can bear to do so for five minutes, it will transform your game.  Either the players will realize that they need to do something, or you will realize that they aren't really interested in playing.

I'm completely, totally serious.  Don't initiate the action, make the players do it.  And the best way to make them do it is to refuse to do it for them.

This is incredibly passive aggressive. It's always better to discuss issues like this out of game. Sandboxes aren't for everybody, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It's not passive aggressive at all.  it's very,very direct.  It shows them the direct relationship between their own participation and things happening in the game.

Yeah it's not passive aggressive. GM's and players drive the game. The GM should act/react based on what the PC's and NPC's do. If the NPC's are doing what they need to be doing in the background the onus of the PC's is for them to do what they need to do. That requires the players, not the GM to move the ball.


Edit: I agree it's not optimal to stand there in silence. But sometimes that's exactly what needs to happen. I'm experiencing that right now in my Edge of the Empire game where the players have insulated themselves on board their ship and are too scared to actually take dangerous jobs working for the various cartels... so instead of playing Edge of the Empire... they're playing Old Republic Space Trucker