Quote from: The Exploited.;967739Even in a sandbox game you've got to have the players stick together even if the reason is fairly obtuse. It's fine for them to pursue their own goals, but it'd be better with the assistance of the other players (in turn). Well, more interesting for the whole gaming group. Using a spotlight from time to time is great of course and gives the characters their own time to further their agendas.

Having a commonality works very well in a game like 'Beyond the Wall' and the mechanics reflect this in interesting ways that really help the GM to build on the game from the ground up.

Personally, I'd prefer a more WFRP approach. Such as greed/money keeping the group together. Or fighting some common enemy out of revenge. I'm not all that enamored at playing 'good guy' heroes per se.

Being bonded to the players through their backgrounds can be a double-edged sword because it can be restrictive if not done correctly. If you can lump them together initially (which is easy enough), then a bond will form naturally and you should be good to go from there. Unless you players are being deliberate dicks or somthing.

Keeping the same group together assumes that the same people playing the same characters consistently are the only participants of the campaign. What about an open table sandbox run in a FLGS where you have about 15 people who play but only about 6 or 7 of them play each session and the group mix is different each time? Trying to "keep the party together" is an exercise in futility. No one needs to be a dick or refuse to cooperate with anyone for the entire unified party theory to just fall apart.

In this type of campaign each player has individual goals and works with whomever is available to help achieve them. Sometimes players in the same group can be working at cross purposes. Playing this out is part of the fun of the game.

The band of heroes joined at the hip for life is only one particular type of campaign.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;967748Keeping the same group together assumes that the same people playing the same characters consistently are the only participants of the campaign. What about an open table sandbox run in a FLGS where you have about 15 people who play but only about 6 or 7 of them play each session and the group mix is different each time? Trying to "keep the party together" is an exercise in futility. No one needs to be a dick or refuse to cooperate with anyone for the entire unified party theory to just fall apart.

In this type of campaign each player has individual goals and works with whomever is available to help achieve them. Sometimes players in the same group can be working at cross purposes. Playing this out is part of the fun of the game.

The band of heroes joined at the hip for life is only one particular type of campaign.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about having a group at my FLGS. So that's not applicable... I'm talking about the average game with a long term group. If you're not, then just change your game strategy to one that suits.

Personally, I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than GM at a table with 15 players.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967720No. Just fucking no.

Stop "giving" the players anything beyond information about the game-world. It's up to them to decide why to stay together, to negotiate with one another to make that happen, and for fuck's sake stop relying on character 'backgrounds' to tie them together.

Just fucking play, and sort it out as you go.

If you're not going to play out the process of the group coming together, there's nothing wrong with asking, "How did you guys meet?" Paths intersecting is a contrivance to begin with, and a story about what came before is just as organic as a story that comes out in play. Doesn't have to be some elaborate description. Could be as simple as "Jake and worked in the same caravan guard last year," or "I used to date her sister."

Likely not up everyone's alley, but Dungeon World had an option for players to describe their early adventures, which we went ahead and used. I pulled some random adventure titles, then asked the players to describe what happened. Out of that, we got a recurring nemesis, and some political threads to weave into the campaign tapestry. Again, not everyone's cup o tf tea, but I liked unleashing the player's creativity in this manner, mainly because I had a group of players who were really good at that sort of thing. Saved me some work, and created investment on their part.

I guess I have been lucky so far as I've never needed to motivate my players. They show up because they want to have a fun adventure so I've never had to get them to "buy in." Are there really a lot of players showing up for games and then don't know what to do when the session starts?

I've also been lucky as I haven't experienced the "lone wolf" player who thinks he gets to go off on a separate adventure.

As others have noted there's ton of wisdom flowing through this thread. I want to build off this general point...

Quote from: S'mon;967707More really good advice. Lots of sandbox GMs fail hard at providing adequate information to the players, especially out-of-world stuff like maps & NPC lists that parrallels in-world info the PCs should know.

One approach I use is through in-world-stuff. That is, I love Rumor Tables. I like building them and I like handing the rumors out to the Players.

When I build a Rumor Table it forces me to make sure that I can sort out all my many ideas into concrete, bullet points that I know I can pass onto to my Players (via their PCs) so that the Players can choose to pursue them, interact with them, do more research, whatever.

When I pass on Rumors to my Players I am telling them about the world -- but not doing it through an info dump. I am doing it by offering up concrete, specific details of interest via the world itself. "These are the exceptional things; these are the kinds of things that stand out; these are the things the people of the world whisper about and take note of." A group of rumors helps define a world in little snippets. "What is going on of interest in this world?" A list of rumors will tell you.

When I began my LotFP campaign I handed out each PC one rumor from the table. Each time a new PC joined the game he or she also received a rumor.

By handing out rumors the group had a list of options that helped them focus what their choices might be. They had options, discussed them, and went off to look for one or the other. (They could have gone of to do something else not connected to the rumors as well, I should add.)

Rumor tables, to me, are a terrific conduit for letting the game world, the PCs, and the Players meet with information in discreet units.

Rumor has it...

Always a great way to get a game started.

Quote from: Voros;967616Another 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.'

Another thing to do is to think about what happens with unfollowed plot hooks. At the start of a sandbox campaign, you might give the group a few rumors, patron, and/or problems they have the option to follow up on. if they decide to go with one, you don't need to leave the others in all stasis waiting for the players to come back like in a video game. That patron will hire someone else who will attempt to carry out the job with consequences in the setting. The consequences might be bad for the PCs sometimes, but you don't want to go too heavy with that, or it feels like you are punishing the players for not obediently following the hook.

It is fine to let some hooks lie around for later. If the players are handed a secret map to a lost dungeon and don't there right away, it's reasonable it might stay lost until the players decided to get to it. Just use common sense.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;967775By handing out rumors the group had a list of options that helped them focus what their choices might be. They had options, discussed them, and went off to look for one or the other. (They could have gone of to do something else not connected to the rumors as well, I should add.)

I like how this allows a campaign to start with an in-character conversation between the players. They all have information they can share (or hold back) from one another, and they use it in deciding what to do. The character dynamics begin right there.

Quote from: saskganesh;967588For 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

This is virtually the way you start EVERY RPG adventure ever. Seriously, don't even dare not do this. You just fucked up your game if you did.

Quote from: The Exploited.;967561Sandbox 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.

Having GM'd most of the NWOD games at this point, that bit about Vampire doesn't hold water. Not that you are *wrong*, so much as you're putting too much faith in the players there. I'm am ambitious person by nature: this is a good thing. Being that kind of person when playing dungeon dwellers *ALWAYS* ends badly -- I have ample experience of that. The worst was actually in playing VTR (that's a saga for another time...) and I was your archtypal hotshot on the come up making face and playing fresh to the point I was the defacto main character and had the most interesting scenes (I was on the verge of becoming a sort of "street boss" in terms of authority and as an Unaligned). It was grating any time anyone else had a scene because the GM had to grind through it to get anything out of the other players -- and that's all too common. Players like me are very rare that push gameplay autonomously so you always have to lead your players, even if by "so you can do this or this or...".

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 is too basic. Even for veterans, this ain't enough, there is always extrapolation from here.

Quote from: Voros;967616Lots 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.'

That's not good advice, not in the form he gave it.

Quote from: -E.;967644My 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.

Now this is a better list of things you can do to provide PCs with the illusion of freedom, at least. And you may very well be able to improv well enough that each marker really is just something that you're making up via reacting to the PCs.

That's the key: improv. You need to be *fucking* good at it, it should be a top three skils minimum to get good at GM'ing (and no, using random tables doesn't count, this is a total mental thing).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967720No. Just fucking no.

Stop "giving" the players anything beyond information about the game-world. It's up to them to decide why to stay together, to negotiate with one another to make that happen, and for fuck's sake stop relying on character 'backgrounds' to tie them together.

Just fucking play, and sort it out as you go.

This is bullshit. Above was too basic but this is just silly. Your argument seems to be literally "don't do what should happen in the first session for prep, just let it play out". And while that's great 'n' all, it's going to lead to a shit first session every single time. PCs need to be together or in close proximity for a reason, ANY reason. This means whether their escaped slaves or newly recruited mercenaries in the same squad, there's a fucking reason they're together and why they'd be glued for the immediate future at least.

Quote from: The Exploited.;967739Even in a sandbox game you've got to have the players stick together even if the reason is fairly obtuse. It's fine for them to pursue their own goals, but it'd be better with the assistance of the other players (in turn). Well, more interesting for the whole gaming group. Using a spotlight from time to time is great of course and gives the characters their own time to further their agendas.

Having a commonality works very well in a game like 'Beyond the Wall' and the mechanics reflect this in interesting ways that really help the GM to build on the game from the ground up.

Personally, I'd prefer a more WFRP approach. Such as greed/money keeping the group together. Or fighting some common enemy out of revenge. I'm not all that enamored at playing 'good guy' heroes per se.

Being bonded to the players through their backgrounds can be a double-edged sword because it can be restrictive if not done correctly. If you can lump them together initially (which is easy enough), then a bond will form naturally and you should be good to go from there. Unless you players are being deliberate dicks or somthing.

Greed's good 'n' all but unless your players are naturally ambitious like I state above or Gordon Gecko-ish, it's a pretty shit way of tying them together. You need something deeper and realistically, we have to start at that "deeper" level because anything else is superficial. It could be a tight study group, a military unit, a crew of gangsters (a la Omar's regular crew from The Wire). They have to be *invested* in each other's futures at some level.

Quote from: The Exploited.;967751Yeah, but I'm not talking about having a group at my FLGS. So that's not applicable... I'm talking about the average game with a long term group. If you're not, then just change your game strategy to one that suits.

Personally, I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than GM at a table with 15 players.

I regularly GM for 9-11 players: I love[/] it. Best way to play a NWOD game, especially more political ones like Vampire (or really any of them, even Promethean if you're open to higher tiers in that game)

Quote from: Dumarest;967779Rumor has it...

Always a great way to get a game started.

That is an old standby and it really does never get old.

Always like it that in Baldur's Gate there's a rumours tab when interacting with a tavernkeeper, even if you'll end up walking across the subject yourself just by exploring, hah hah.

@Promethian.

But I'm not talking about NWOD here (I'm not a fan of it - especially Requiem). But playing in the Sabbat will always gel the players together as they are bound together through the Vaulderie. In fact, 6(ish) months down the line (in gameplay) they will probably be willing to die for each other (if they play the mechanics correctly). So, for Vampire (Sabbat) it works very well.

Having too much faith in the players? You guys must be playing with some right oddballs... As I've already mentioned earlier (to Explodingwizard). I'm referring to people who you've been gaming with and presumably don't want to sabotage your game. But want to have fun. If you have a different set of gaming criteria then just change your stategy (again as I've already mentioned to Explodingwizard).

Nah. I don't agree... Playing with 9-11 players would just piss me off. And would make any such political games a pain in the ass. While I've GM'd for big groups in the past the max I'll have now at my table is 4.

That said, as this is just all personal opinion your experiences may vary.

The way I usually run a game is what a call "a jungle gym".

A jungle gym is not rail roading, but it's not a sandbox either. As needed I tilt it towards one side or the other depending on how events unfold and the players react to them. This way it's flexible enough that I can pivot to plot points that interest them rather than force them to something they might not want to do. It requires a bit more winging it on occasion then some GMs would like, but done well it works.

Add in some carrot and stick too.

I've found that for my group that seems to work best.

Another novel approach when the group split and couldn't agree to goals/adventures was to let the group split and everyone rolled a second set of characters. From there one week focused on one group of PCs then the other. It worked quite well too.

EDIT 2: another tactic is to listen to what your players are discussing or guessing in terms of the plot. There are times where I've diverted from what I was planning due to their speculation. If you do this very rarely it works as it draws them in tighter I've found.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;967775One approach I use is through in-world-stuff. That is, I love Rumor Tables. I like building them and I like handing the rumors out to the Players.

I do a slightly meta thing in my big sandbox Wilderlands game where I have a Campaign web page that details the known campaign area at the kind of detail level PCs would know. Then now and then I add rumours to the page. Some of these concern past PC deeds, but some are new. Players who read the page get to 'overhear' these rumours! But I can also use it myself as an aide memoire for NPCs talking about stuff.

Just been updating a Dungeons section for the area around one village, Bratanis - wonder if anyone will read it...

Local Dungeons
This area has been inhabited for thousands of years, and  there are many ruins and dungeons in the hills around Bratanis. Adventurers often use the Bratanis Inn as a base for their expeditions.
2 miles north of Bratanis lies Goblin Gulley, with its ancient Demonbrood slave pits.
4.5 miles south-east of Bratanis, the Ruins of the Gorgon lie on a north-facing wooded hillside, about half a mile south from the meadowlands along the river. The ruins are said to have once been a temple of Midor, the orc god, and are the lair of feral redcap gnomes.
4 miles west of Bratanis in a dry gorge are the Nerath Caves, which bear signs of that fallen empire. Once the lair of terrible Gaunt Hounds, said to have been defeated in 4444 by the heroic Captain Lance Harcourt, the caves are now believed safe, and recent treasure hunters have returned empty-handed.
An old ruin called the Sunless Citadel is said to lie buried in a deep crevasse 3 miles due south of town, across the Thrace river. Goblins live there, and grow apples from a magical tree.
24 miles west along the Pilgrims' Trail is the Tomb of Belaras, Temple-Crypt of this Ghinoran Saint of Apollo-Mitra, which serves as a testing ground for would-be Mitra priests and holy warriors, still tended by a small cadre of priests.

And here are the rumours from that village for the past 13 game-months, about 2 real years - some other hub villages like Thusia & Selatine have a similar amount of detail:

Bratanis Rumours:
M1 4446: Aeschela is secretly paying tribute to Warlord Yusan, who holds her sister Thuvia, in defiance of the Lords' Alliance to oppose him!
M2 4446: Bratanis has been troubled by hobgoblin raiders. The barbarian Eardvulf slew a dozen of them in hill ruins four miles east of Bratanis.
6/2/4446: Ruggio has overthrown Aeschela and made himself Lord of Bratanis! He keeps her naked and chained at his feet! He plans to join the Lords' Alliance.
6/2/4446: Bjornalf the Warlock has persuaded Ruggio to marry Lady Aeschela!
M5/4446: Ruggio murdered Aeschela, betrayed the Lords' Alliance, and joined with Yusan!
12/6/4446: Ruggio not found among the dead after the disastrous Battle of Yusan's Fall, 4.5 hours march south of Krens' Cairn.
1/2/4447: Ruggio found & killed by Hakeem in the Vale, Hakeem rescuing Priestess Octavia from his brigands.
M2 4447: Shelos was kidnapped by cultists from beneath Sky God Idol, but rescued by adventurers and the slave Misha - the Lady Thuvia gave Misha her freedom.
M2 4447: Two miles north of town, in the woods a mile past Erhurr Farm, lies Goblin Gulley. Archermos slew the Goblins, but beware the ancient abomination that lurks in the depths of the Demonbrood slave pits!

Quote from: Baulderstone;967791Another thing to do is to think about what happens with unfollowed plot hooks. At the start of a sandbox campaign, you might give the group a few rumors, patron, and/or problems they have the option to follow up on. if they decide to go with one, you don't need to leave the others in all stasis waiting for the players to come back like in a video game. That patron will hire someone else who will attempt to carry out the job with consequences in the setting. The consequences might be bad for the PCs sometimes, but you don't want to go too heavy with that, or it feels like you are punishing the players for not obediently following the hook.

It is fine to let some hooks lie around for later. If the players are handed a secret map to a lost dungeon and don't there right away, it's reasonable it might stay lost until the players decided to get to it. Just use common sense.

I like to roll a d6 for 'unfollowed' stuff, typically the higher roll, the better for PCs (so 1= very bad, 3/4 = neutral, 6 = very good). That avoids the temptation to have all villain plots succeed, all NPC allies of the PCs be incompetent losers, etc. Maybe Lord Redshirt faces the Witch King Zhengyi at the Battle of Fordyford, gets a 6, drives off the Witch King's forces and is acclaimed Hero of Damara.

Re PC reasons to be together - yes this is obviously true. Even in an Open Table game the PCs whose players are at the table must have a good reason to stick together for the session, such as going into Castle Greyhawk Level X to get loot. In a closed-table game that means good reason for pretty much the same 4-6 characters to stick together long term.

I once ran a short 'Game of Thrones' style game using BX rules, set in Rob Conley's Southland setting, where the PCs had competing goals. They started together in a princess's retinue on the way to a baron's castle for her wedding. First session went great, but by session 2, with all the betrayals & backstabbing they had shattered apart and were now all over the map, with good reason never to join up again - just like in GoT. For long term play this would be unworkable.

Quote from: -E.;967733Oh, please.
For someone who's group meets six times a year, you have awfully fucking strong ideas about how those of us who play every week ought to do things. You'd discover your impractical idealism is ivory-tower crap, and that people who actually game have figured out how to make it work.

If you come down off your high horse, you might find that

1) If the people in the game want to scatter, fine -- I explicitly addressed in the post you quoted -- but if you don't want that, then work with everyone to ensure that there's alignment. This is basic stuff.
2) The GM -- the traditional RPG model -- is the elected group leader. Show some fucking leadership.

Cheers!
-E.

Yep. I generally GM several sessions a week (4 this week, 2 tabletop & 2 online, about 12.5 hours GMing, but I do up to around 6 sometimes) both sandbox and more linear games, and I definitely find that while players are keen to find reasons for their PCs to work together, a GM who facilitates that is a big help. "You are all musketeers in service to Cardinal Richelieu" or "You're pirates" or "You're wandering adventurers" or "You're in service to Lord Markelhay". In a sandbox you don't stop the PCs betraying Richelieu, shivving Markelhay, or (perhaps) giving up their wandering life to found a Keep or (possibly even) a dockside tavern. But some kind of starting theme is very helpful to get everyone together.