@PencilBoy99,

You may want to take a look at Apocalypse World or it's urban fantasy hack, Monsterhearts. They provide the best tools and advice I've seen for sandbox play.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847468Oh, well, shit, PIZZA!  That's different.

Your reaction seems entirely reasonable to me. I order sausage and mushroom because I want to eat sausage and mushroom. If I wanted to eat greasy pepperoni or green peppers and rabbit food I would have fucking ordered greasy pepperoni and green peppers with rabbit food.

We played a special in person game Wednesday night. We ordered pizza. I insisted one of the two pizzas would be sausage and mushroom. (Of course the other was pepperoni and extra cheese.) Then I made sure I got my pieces first. (As it turned out we grossly over ordered so the only thing we ran out of was the cheesy bread sticks.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847469Also, to echo another poster, why should buying a boat be more than "It costs $75,800, do you have the cash?  Done."  Complicating a mundane transaction just for the sake of complication is poor design.

I can see complicating the transaction if (i) owning a boat is a big milestone for the campaign and boats are hard to acquire or (ii) boats are quirky and individual things like the Millennium Falcon rather than standardized like a Ford Pickup so the process of selecting which boat to spend $70-80K on is interesting and meaningful.

You know, you still haven't told us what the players actually DO say.

What does their half of this conversation look like?

"Sandbox" means different things to different people. I take it to mean players are free to do whatever they want. If they're having fun -- all together, not one at the expense of the others -- then whatever they choose is the right choice.

A caveat is that if they're doing something insufficiently interesting to you (say, sitting at home squabbling), you're free to leave them to it without your attention as game master. That's a common-sense clause based on the practical reality that it's a social engagement in which the GM is there to have fun, too.

In old D&D, a wizard spending weeks on magical research was effectively "out of play."  The day to day minutia of that undertaking did not command the same attention as proper adventures.

If drawing that line is a problem, you probably just aren't a good fit for playing the game together. If you enjoy each other's company while playing other games, play those instead.

First, though, see whether you can stop making it a problem for yourself. If you relax a little, maybe you'll find that you have enough fun even though you'd prefer that the players do something else.

Quote from: hexgrid;847249This is incredibly passive aggressive.

No, it's not. It's totally straightforward. That's how the game works: You say what you're doing and the GM tells you the consequences. You know that before you start; if somehow you don't then that omission is a really critical problem.

If you sit down to play Adventure and just keep entering nothing, it's the same thing. In some versions, at least in some places something will eventually happen anyhow. It might not be as exciting as getting eaten by a grue or robbed by the Thief, though. If you don't even look, you might not notice a passing bird or whatever.

Unless you're on a time limit, nothing changes in Chess until you make a move. The ballgame doesn't get going until the ball is thrown or kicked or whatever.

This is just no-brainer elementary school stuff. If you're here to play, then play!

QuoteIt's always better to discuss issues like this out of game. Sandboxes aren't for everybody, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sure, so why the heck are they sitting like dumb rocks? Can't have a conversation with such inertia.

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

Quote from: Old One Eye;847313Do not come up with ideas to engage the PCs.  

Come up with NPCs who have agendas.  In character creation, PCs should have ties to NPCs.  In play, all you do is have the NPCs try to put their agendas into action.  The PCs ties to said NPCs will automatically draw them in.

Again, I do not know Vampire, but a simple example is something like this:

The Prince wants to eliminate all Brujah in the area for whatever reason.  The Brujah PC has buddies among the local Brujah, perhaps even her sire.  As the Prince is putting his plan in action, she quickly notices that her Brujah buddies are disappearing.  She can choose to ignore it if she wants, whereupon she will eventually be targetted.  Most likely, she will want to investigate what is happening to her buddies.

NPCs need goals and agendas.  Things need to be happening.  PCs need ties to the world.

Yes.
I would add more, but I am travelling.

http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design

Ok, I am taking the time to add this, though I think I have sent it to you before.  Hope it helps,

Quote from: Bren;847442Five minutes is all it takes for them to crack? Man, your players are a bunch of hyperactive weasels on crack compared to mine. If allowed to, my players will take much longer than that just to decide what kind of pizza they like. And I'm not saying order, I'm saying like. The Byzantine negotiations for pizza ordering make a turn of Diplomacy look simple.

I had one player who would go to her cell phone when she was disinterested.
While for some players 5 minutes of dead time would motivate them, there are some that will simply drift away.
And while I think it's the player's responsibility to actually be there to play and not fart around, I do think it's equally the DM's responsibility to be engaging the players to do shit.

Somewhere in-between those two poles lie Monty Python jokes and Candy Crush...

Dunno why I'm replying to you, Bren. That's just where my thoughts drifted after reading your post.

I wouldn't normally complicate a simple transaction, but this is ALL I'm getting from them. So I want to turn it into something interesting so something happens. They ignore plot threads and faction requests unless I do it quest style (giving tons of boons which I've been cautioned against). Eventually the plot threads they've ignored come back to bite them (e.g., attacked), but they do the minimal amount and then don't pursue it.

I've asked them a bunch of time for what they swans, what their goals are, etc. I'm happy to support what they want - I hate political maneuvering but the few times they've shown interest I've jumped in eagerly.

I think the issue really is I have one player who is very "alpha" and wants the game to feel like a vampire larp, and 3 other players who want to do something procedural but back down.

Okay, first, I'm going to rant a bit.

Jesus Christ, kid, you've got three or four different GOD damned threads talking essentially about the same thing.  Contact the mods and have them merge your fucking threads.

Now, as to your question.

"I think the issue really is I have one player who is very "alpha" and wants the game to feel like a vampire larp, and 3 other players who want to do something procedural but back down."

Say more.  However, I am 99 44/100% sure of what I'm going to say:

"Sit down with your players and have an intelligent, adult conversation with them to achieve a reasonable compromise.  And when that fails, kill them and take their stuff."

Quote from: PencilBoy99;847604I wouldn't normally complicate a simple transaction, but this is ALL I'm getting from them. So I want to turn it into something interesting so something happens.

That's the wrong thing to do.  You're reinforcing the actions you claim you dislike.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;847604I've asked them a bunch of time for what they swans, what their goals are, etc..

SO WHAT THE FUCK DID THEY SAY???  In three different god damned threads you've STILL never answered this question!

Oh. Nothing. They hemm and haw but not much... The Tremere doesn't really want anything. The Tzimsice want's to reinforce his homeland - so I drop threads about "there's this sweet mercinary company that could be hired" but he doesn't pursue it, etc.

I'm sure it's me, as I suck as a GM.

Do you take that "I'm sure I suck as a referee" attitude with your gaming group?  Because nobody can use you as a doormat unless you lie down in front of them.

You're asking the wrong question.  The question you need to ask is "why are you sitting at this table if you're not going to do anything?"

It sounds to me like everybody's at fault.  The players want you to be a video game and you're so desperate to please them that you're trying.

I was right.  You need to sit down with them and have an adult talk about why you're even running a game for them.

I suspect this game group doesn't really want to play a game, they just want to hang around.  Every game group has one or more casual players in it, I suppose it's possible this group is nothing but casual players.

If I were you I'd simply quit running the game.  You aren't having fun and they don't fucking care about the game, so why the fuck are you bothering?  You could be spending the time jerking off instead and at least accomplish something useful.

Not gaming is better than bad gaming, always, and gaming that you consistently do not enjoy is the very definition of bad gaming.

And if you lack the balls to take Old Yeller out behind the barn with a shotgun, simply say you're getting burned out and need a break.  If the group than dies because nobody else steps up, which I strongly suspect is the case, you will be spared the price of some buckshot.

Also, a friendly warning.  Around these parts, saying "I'm sure I suck as a referee" is mostly going to be met with people saying "Yeah, I'm sure you're right" and "boo hoo hoo."  Self pity is not treated kindly.