So as a rule I much prefer a an open gameworld with a light touch of structure and sequenced events to give the players (not the characters) focus. And that works well for my group, however I was chatting with this chap and he was saying that every time he ran a sandbox game his group floundered and became aimless and the game fizzled.

Now I was trying to think what I did that made mine work but I've been gaming with the same group for 20 odd years so it's kind of hard coded.

What advice would you give this guy? Personally if his group is happy running through structured (lightly railroaded) adventures I'd say leave well enough alone, fun is fun after all, but he seems keen to expand his skill set so any clever tips, sage advice or handy hints?

Quote from: HorusArisen;967545What advice would you give this guy?

Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967552Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

Getting the players involved, always a firm start, and I like the goals idea reminds me of the beliefs from Burning Wheel in a way.

GMs who are used to having a structured plot driving what will happen may not get how to run a playstyle where PCs can do what they want and do something interesting. I would say maybe try starting by doing what they already do, but start letting go of more and more of the predetermined parts, and start adding thinking about what else might happen that they hadn't considered, and start leaving more and more openings and prompts for the players to choose their own interests and ways of doing things. Ask the players (either directly and/or via appropriate NPCs and/or getting the PCs to discuss it themselves) what their immediate interests and goals and plans are and then prepare that between sessions. But prepare things not so much in terms of a tree of expected events, but in terms of what and who that's relevant is where the PCs are going, what they are doing, so that the GM can determine during play what happens, as a natural result of what the PCs (and other agents present doing things nearby) do.

Sandbox games don't suit every group.

If there are players struggling then the GM has to find something for them to do. So, they can have their sandbox, but if it's slowing down or not working then the GM can bring in his light railroad game to get the game back on track. Then, when it's done let them off again. The other thing is to sprinkle some seeds aout the place - even just bullshit rumours that will nudge the players in a direction. So they will want actually want to investigate places using their own intiative. This can get them moving into a new area and things can happen organically (in theroy anyway).

Much like a good TV show, I think a good sandbox need an overall arc that can be brought in as needed. But not forced down your throat...

B.V. is right about having character goals. Vampire (Sabbat preferably) is great for this! As soon as the GM stops the players have their own ends to sort out, so the game is never static. I find it quite odd that some players just 'cease motion' when the GM gives them a bit breathing space.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967552Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

This. But be prepared to adjust as events unfold (I'm speaking of the player, here).

Also: the evolving world has forces in it who have goals as well, and where these goals intersect with the players/PCs, you gain additional directions to choose from.

Quote from: HorusArisen;967545So as a rule I much prefer a an open gameworld with a light touch of structure and sequenced events to give the players (not the characters) focus. And that works well for my group, however I was chatting with this chap and he was saying that every time he ran a sandbox game his group floundered and became aimless and the game fizzled.

Now I was trying to think what I did that made mine work but I've been gaming with the same group for 20 odd years so it's kind of hard coded.

What advice would you give this guy? Personally if his group is happy running through structured (lightly railroaded) adventures I'd say leave well enough alone, fun is fun after all, but he seems keen to expand his skill set so any clever tips, sage advice or handy hints?

Motivation is everything.

A "structured" adventure, at it's best and when it works, is structured according to, or is at least compatible with, the motives that appeal to the player characters. When a "structured" adventure flops, it's because the structure is over has no regard for the motives that appeal to the player characters.

Sandbox adventures, at their best, work because when given full freedom of choice, players are always playing according to their motives. When sandbox adventures flop, it's because either players don't bring enough motivation to the table themselves, or the GM hasn't presented enough information or a nuanced enough world so that the players can see clear a best course of action (or at least one that seems best to the player or players at the time) right from the word "go" to get the ball rolling.

My advice: be aware of motivations. Don't run a structured adventure that isn't appropriate for the group. When designing your sandbox, be sure to include details that almost demand action. And in order to be best prepared with those details where you need them, you have to get good at anticipating the direction players will take in a sandbox and plan accordingly.

Get a copy of Tony Bath's "Ancient Wargaming."
http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/society-of-ancients-and-tony-bath-and-john-curry/tony-baths-ancient-wargaming/paperback/product-15463540.html

Read "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign," and do that with your world.  Then, run your world at the kingdom level using his rules for five years (game time, this should take about an evening.)

His rules include things like wars starting, assassinations, natural disasters, etc.  After five years all sorts of shit will be happening in your world.

Now turn your players loose.

For a new campaign with unknown players I usually start with a railroaded first adventure (*just goto the fucking local dungeon eh*) and then gradually open the world up. An NPC patron can also act as a sandbox midwife offering quests and tasks and hooks etc.

Once players are somewhat immersed, events and adventures usually start taking a life of their own. A good campaign has momentum, so it's easy to run, especially if you develop some decent improv skills and robust prep habits

I've never seen a 'structured' adventure that didn't make me what to drive an electric drill into my head to stop the voices from driving me mad.

Seriously, I think anything remotely 'railroady' in a table top rpg adventure just ruins the whole thing. It's like siting down to play chess only to find you are only allowed to re-enact bobby fischer's greatest game, complete with the voices, and if you screw up someone will roll their eyes and put the piece where it was supposed to go.

Lots of good responses here, Black Vulmea had the best advice which is give the PCs goals and relationships that will drive the adventures.

BtW has scenerio playbooks that create dynamic randomized structures for adventures and even a campaign that are worth checking out, close to a 'structured sandbox' in feel.

Another approach is it have a sandbox with adventure seeds for mini and major adventures spread throughout it, via actually engaging NPCs and/or a central McGuffin. Night's Dark Terror and even recent 5e adventures like Lost Mines of Phandelver and Curse of Strahd all take this approach and it can work very well. The trick is to make the NPCs and sidequests actually engaging enough that they function as more than Skyrim automatons handing out fetchquests. One of the key ways of doing that is to really tie them into the setting and PCs in ways more interesting than 'this guy is yer cousin.'

A lot of people have said it, and Alexander coined a phrase for it, Don't create Polots, create Situations.  Once you stop trying to be a Master of Ceremonies, and be more of a Worldbuilder and Rules Referee, then you come up with a World in Motion where the NPCs all have their own goals and motivations and are going to be working for those goals, possibly against other NPCs, all without the players doing anything.

Give them a world, and it will be much easier to get them to think like their character and come up with goals in this world.

That's nice, but it's easy to say, and they've probably been playing a different way, so what can the GM do?

• Come up with some major situations that are happening in the area, perhaps related to hooks the players may have in the world through their history/backstory.
• When the players are presented with these situations, encourage them to react, through in-game support.  NPCs are looking to hire them, rewards are given, etc.  Make some things seem like normal Plot Hooks.  The key is make enough of them that the players have to choose what they are going to focus on.
• When they go "off track", let them.  Let things stall for a session, let them be responsible for the flow of what happens.  If they think outside the box and catch you unawares, let them do the same to the NPC, reward non-linear thinking.

You do these three things, you'll start moving them towards advancing their character goals as characters as opposed to dealing with "campaign plots" as players.

Now, this type of playstyle isn't for everyone.  Players will prefer certain levels of structure, and different levels of IC/OOC, and different levels of anything else.  But, it's kind of hard to knock it until you try it, especially if you have nothing but incorrect preassumptions about it to begin with.

My thoughts on running sandboxes:

1) If you don't want characters scattering to the 4 winds, ensure they have reasons to stay together -- ideally pre-existing relationships & shared goals

2) Develop character goals iteratively. The characters live in and grew up in the world. The players didn't. If you're not in a familiar setting, getting good goals that work with the world may take some doing -- you want goals that are likely to generate engaging game-play in the world.

Note: One of the reasons, "We're adventurers who go into dangerous places and return with treasure" is such a classic is that it is exciting and suitable for any setting where there are dangerous places with treasure.

3) Have NPCs and external factors doing interesting things that will be visible to the characters. If the world is dynamic, it will provide threats and opportunities, if the PC's just sit still long enough.

4) Provide a map -- of some kind. Give the PC's a bunch of stuff to engage with. Give them a star-chart and say, "You're here, there are 6 other planets in the system, and you understand these two are full of dangerous ruins and treasure. That one is run by an evil cyberlitch who people say has designs on conquering everything."

If you don't have a world with frontiers to explorer and places to go, it's hard to engage.

5) Provide useful NPCs -- Ideally a short list of them. These should include Patrons, antagonists, people who need help, power-brokers. Maybe an underworld contact or two. This is really another kind of map. If you're not sure what to do, go talk to Fred The Merchant who always needs caravan guards, or talk to the Scheming Executive who always needs mercenary operatives, or whatever.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: HorusArisen;967545So as a rule I much prefer a an open gameworld with a light touch of structure and sequenced events to give the players (not the characters) focus. And that works well for my group, however I was chatting with this chap and he was saying that every time he ran a sandbox game his group floundered and became aimless and the game fizzled.

Now I was trying to think what I did that made mine work but I've been gaming with the same group for 20 odd years so it's kind of hard coded.

What advice would you give this guy? Personally if his group is happy running through structured (lightly railroaded) adventures I'd say leave well enough alone, fun is fun after all, but he seems keen to expand his skill set so any clever tips, sage advice or handy hints?

I'm big towards the Sandbox end, but I have seen some Sandbox Taliban who say things like "It's only a Sandbox if everything is pre-created before the game starts & runs mechanically from there - otherwise it's a Railroad" - I think this is generally not a good model to emulate, the GM is almost always going to need to add content during play, including adventure sites & 'hooks' - as long as PCs can ignore those hooks it's not railroady IMO.
The most important thing is that the PCs need to be motivated. They may be treasure seeking adventurers, brave knights, starship crew on an exploration mission, secret agents fighting Nazi Cthulu. Motivations don't create a railroad. A railroad (soft version) is when the GM creates a linear series of adventures the PCs have to play through, and the world/setting is just a facade for the Adventure Path. (Hard Railroad is when the GM does this by scene, and players have to play through each pre-determined scene, often with little or no meaningful choice).

I've been looking at how to make a non-railroad Achtung! Cthulu game, when it is clearly set up for do-this-mission play. I think the key is to focus on environment creation first - the PCs' home base (this is vital IMO, pace West Marches), enemy bases, neutral areas, all full of lots of NPCs with their own motivations. THEN start dropping in potential adventures/missions. The campaign probably does need to start with a "do this" mission, but everything after that can develop on from the results of the initial play.

Quote from: Larsdangly;967612I think anything remotely 'railroady' in a table top rpg adventure just ruins the whole thing. It's like siting down to play chess only to find you are only allowed to re-enact bobby fischer's greatest game, complete with the voices, and if you screw up someone will roll their eyes and put the piece where it was supposed to go.

That's ... sig-worthy.