Greetings!

I know "Sandboxes" are the happy style to do OSR gaming, and "Railroading" is some terrible, horrible sin...

I hate to be a bit contrarian, because they annoy me greatly, but, honestly, it must be said--

Some players LIKE RAILROADS.

Some players NEED RAILROADS.

As Yosemitemike discussed, and Steve Mitchell, well, it is not uncommon to have otherwise circle-jerking players. To call them unmotivated may be inaccurate, and not fair. They just have different priorities than you.

Now, hold on. They can be the same priorities, but ordered and weighted differently, from you. That is probably true of every player, to be honest. But by degree, the further out-ordered priorities of a player from you, while generally shared, can still present a distinctive "problem."

So, different players actually express and pursue their priorities in various ways. That isn't always straight-away following plot hooks layed out for them. *laughing*

Sometimes, the DM must simply say, "Yes, you have everything, you have arrived at the entrance to the dungeon!"

And proceed from there.

I have one player that can manage to turn an assumed short trip to the stable to get the pack mules ready to go, into an adventure. *Laughing* Them having a smoke on the porch or veranda of the Inn they are staying at can be dangerous. They are the kind of player that is hyper-aware and constantly intrigued by seducing any good looking sexy treat they lay eyes on, or provoking someone into a brawl, or on their own concocting some fevered scheme or evil plot they believe the villains are doing--and get the government swept up into the hysteria. If you let them, these people can start a revolution in a weekend.

In contrast to that player though, there are others that just are not that imaginative. The setting, the "Journey" such as it is, has less appeal for them. They want to virtually instantly be at the "Destination."

"Are we there yet?"

They want to be wherever they need to be, to get killing, and getting that booty.

There are no doubt degrees of differences for these kinds of players, and more types besides.

As others have shown, yeah, there ARE players that are also very content to just hang out at the tavern or go shopping, or chat with their girlfriend about what young nobleman they should hit up and bang.

I have some players like that, too. The adventure, and the dungeon, that's all fine and good. What they really get excited about though is going shopping at the new upscale district in the city, attending a masquerade ball, or having a rustic playtime in the happy forest with some elves. *Laughing*

Yes, dealing with different player types can be challenging, and requires a mix of approaches and tools by the DM. Just expecting everyone to be totally dungeon-focused, sandbox focused, eh. Yeah, that is nice, but rather ideal. Your group can easily include other Player Types that you must deal with in various ways.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601 on Today at 11:32:46 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on Today at 10:58:54 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on Today at 10:16:53 AM

Quote from: Brad on Today at 08:04:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 07:07:44 AMThe players choose their goals. The players make choices.
 

Within the context of the world the GM creates, right? I think that's what they're saying. The PCs can do whatever they want in the game, but the GM is the one who ultimately decides what the game is.

Yeah. The GM comes up with whatever scenarios exist in the world, and the characters react to them.
I went through a period where I was so afraid of railroading that I thought myself into a corner and couldn't figure out how to get an adventure started. The way out of that corner is to realize that the characters can make all the decisions they want, but they have to have some kind of context to make those decisions from.

That's something important. I think too many people talk about a "sandbox" as though they mean there is nothing. You drop the players in a town and then wing everything else. There are no hooks, no "quests", no dungeon that can be a place to go just "What do you want to do today?" which IMHO is just stupid and nonsensical. Unlike a videogame you can't just go up to every NPC you meet and talk to them hoping they give some "clue".

Actually, my complaint is that some groups in a sandbox won't pursue the hooks and quests even if there's neon sign hanging over them saying "Quest HERE!"

They will literally just head to the bar, ignore the hooded figure offering them a treasure map and the two guards yakking about how a caravan loaded with valuables on the kingsroad was struck by bandits not an hour from the town gates, and spend the entire session wanting detailed descriptions of the barmaids and clientele, holding drinking contests, making perform checks to entertain the room, playing darts and essentially anything but engaging with the hooks for an entire session (then do it again for the next session, and the one after that.

Or the one active player who convinces the passive ones that going on adventures is lame and they should instead leverage their class abilities to make money in town with no risk of life and limb... and then gets positively passive aggressive when their endeavor hits the slightest snag or complication.

Some groups just need a railroad... or at least a boss who makes them do work or some situation where it's super obvious what needs to be done (ex. the campaign begins with the party all washed up on the shore of a monster-haunted island after a shipwreck... find water, food, shelter and eventually a way off the island while surviving the monsters... no bars to frequent, no "let's make money in town"... survive the island or don't).

It sounds like those types of players you're describing wouldn't even engage with a railroad. Though I think we've drifted from the definition of a railroad.

A railroad is "when the GM negates player choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome". (Googled dat. Wanted a clear definition and it wasn't coming to me.)

Linear adventures are not railroads, and telling the players "Here's the adventure, ya doinks!" isn't a railroad.

(reposting my youtube comment) I tend to do sandbox for most of my fantasy and wuxia campaigns, and monster of the week for horror (though I have run horror sandboxes too). I think sandbox is one of those styles that can take time to develop the skill set for, and you have to drop some of the guardrails people are accustomed to in order to develop those skills. Adaptability I think is really the crucial thing: being able to not set your own expectations, and realize the potential of the direction things unexpectedly go. And I agree having tools like random generators is always very helpful. There is a synergy that arises when you have those random tools and the setting interacting. Another key thing is operating through NPCs with clear goals. I think a lot of GMs are trained to think in terms of events, or scenes. But a sandbox is more character driven (both on the PC side, but also on the NPC and organizations side). Getting into the mindset of "King Meteor Hammer wants to set up an ambush for the party with his men", versus "An ambush occurs at the Green Owl Inn"is kind of crucial (King Meteor Hammer may try to stage his ambush at the inn, but he is a moving piece on the board just like the PCs and things may not happen the way he wants depending on what actions the PCs take)

Quote from: SHARK on Today at 12:06:08 PMI hate to be a bit contrarian, because they annoy me greatly, but, honestly, it must be said--

Some players LIKE RAILROADS.

Some players NEED RAILROADS.

What I found is that some players, some groups, rather be under orders, be part of a organization that has some structure.

Which is fine by me. Doesn't make anything I do less of a Sandbox campaign. If at some point they wish no longer be part of said organization or defy orders they have that choice. Now if they are not smart about it then there may be unpleasant consequences.

I have an issue with only two types of players, and both are defined by what they do out of the game, not how they act as their characters in-game.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on Today at 01:13:43 PMIt sounds like those types of players you're describing wouldn't even engage with a railroad. Though I think we've drifted from the definition of a railroad.

A railroad is "when the GM negates player choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome". (Googled dat. Wanted a clear definition and it wasn't coming to me.)

Linear adventures are not railroads, and telling the players "Here's the adventure, ya doinks!" isn't a railroad.

I agree with this.

I'll tell you what I find baffling are the idea that running linear adventures is no different than running Sandbox. I'm saying this in a specific way for the reasons I've been accused of being a Sandbox-elitist for simply saying that Sandbox campaigns require more skill to pull off than a linear adventure.

I've never said linear adventures are shit. Though they do exist - D&D is rife with them. I'm saying that a good Sandbox transcends them and can include them. But the prosecution of running what I consider a good Sandbox campaign requires more skill to pull off.

This is not the same thing as running one-shots, or episodic linear adventures, or convention games - all of which can cross-pollinate at various junctures. But running a proper Sandbox has all the tools requires to run all of those variations of game, but those variations do *not* have all the tools required to run a Sandbox.

Largely because there is no need for those tools. This is precisely why I think it's developmental, not simply a mode anyone can reliably dive into with the same assumptions of "success". That is squarely a GMing choice.

The *player* side of this, which everyone seems to be talking about now, is a different matter. I find this to be something a Sandbox GM needs to factor in to the best of their ability. I mean some GM's might be playing with new players, or they may not even be aware of the nature of their players yet.

Players that are passive, for me, are the hardest to deal with for me since I'm a "problem solver" by nature. I'm constantly looking for ways to engage those passive players - I'll generate content for them, I'll engage with roleplaying repeatedly, I'll do whatever it takes to pull them in. I do this with all my players, but when I see someone is not engaging I'll go extra-hard to pull them in. And despite my efforts, you start to realize they're there for different reasons. Then I have to let them go.

I can handle murder-hoboing power-gamers, I can handle assholes that are adversarial and believe they're playing against me, I can handle players that think they know all the lore of an established setting who think they have some kind of advantage because "they read the book." But players that are passively standing around waiting to be told what to do at all times because they're really playing with you and the group for different reasons - those are the worst.

This doesn't mean I don't try to pull out all the stops for them. But at some point, my other players correctly say "Dude how much time are we going to waste trying to engage with player <X> when we all know it will 1) go nowhere 2) blow up in our collective faces?

I'm perfectly fine with players not going after "hooks". That is a choice. The world moves on. I am slightly embarrassed by the amount of stuff I've done for such players. Case in point - I had this player who was notoriously useless. He *imagined* himself as an active player that was very social, and would always try to play the "smooth-talking scoundrel." The problem was he was HORRIBLE at it, when he'd do it at all. The weird part is when we're out of game, he was quite social and chatty, and could talk about all kinds of stuff. But when gametime happened, he would vaporlock tighter than an astronauts asshole who just got tossed out into the big black. He never did *anything* in the game someone didn't have to order him to do. Didn't engage with any NPC's that were logistically connected to him - NPC friends, family, rivals, significant others, he treated them all the same. All his characters were played the same, when played at all. He used to the same cheesy pathetic pseudo-accent, which would drop after first half-hour of the session. He'd tell me he *really* wanted to play <X> - a swordsman that was part of this special school of fighting (ala Zorro). So I'm like, COOL! I then spend my time writing up a 10-page writeup on not just his school, but half a dozen other swordfighting schools that are rivals to his. I create a secret network of locations in the region where they have duels and pit-fights. I make a host of NPC's that flesh it all out, including writeups on the various styles of fighting, their benefits and how to learn them. Mind you, other PC's and NPC's can now learn them too. Effectively I create a whole sub-culture for him to engage with and nestle in with his PC. What happens? He actively ignores all of it.

Now, that's *fine* because it means it's there for anyone else to interact with - but the time/effort ratio on top of all the stuff I do for the game and the players that *do show up to play*, starts to be noticeable to me and the others. Those kinds of players are vampires for GM's like me.

To a man, every player like this has been a player that comes from playing linear adventures, and railroads from other GM's that don't know anything, they hear about my game through others, show up and suddenly when faced with *actual* choice, when faced with actual roleplaying options, and freedom to do what they want, make what they want within context, they lock up. I've *never* had a player that comes from actual Sandbox campaigns come into games at my table and not felt perfectly at home. It's *always* the nobs that come from the linear gaming side. And what happens is we have to "train them up". I'm not shitting on linear adventures - I'm saying again, it's developmental.

One thing I do is something I and others call World in Motion. Namely, that the setting has a life of its own, and events will continue to unfold independently outside of what the players as their characters do impact.

In the case of passive players, this means that, eventually, life will catch up to them. When it does, they will have to make choices whether they want to or not.

Prior to a campaign starting I will make up notes and a timeline of what could be happening in the absence the players doing anything.

I don't have any particular expertise in handling Mythos-related campaigns in the 20th/21st century. I can say for the settings I do run, like my Majestic Wilderlands, Middle Earth, Superheroes, and the Third Imperium. This will eventually result in events directly impacting the circumstances of the players in which choices have to be made.

And I had groups take an interest at that point, and I had groups that still ignored them mostly by uprooting themselves to another place outside of what happened. Note the last group that did that were a bunch of hack-n-slashers uninterested in politics.

I am happy with either outcome and the ones in between. Yes, I put in prep, setting the stage, so to speak. But I find it endlessly fascinating to see how the players navigate it, either proactively or passively. I long given up any idea of how a campaign ought to go. Specific character actions under specific circumstances sure I got plenty of opinions about. That is what refereeing is about to me. But as far as goals and plans, that is up to the players, including the possibility they don't have any goals or plans.

I learned long ago that the ones that cause problems are a result of out-of-game issues; their bad roleplaying was the symptom, not the cause.

Yep this is very much like me. I try to be as complete as possible for the game I'm running, but I know there's *always* something the players want I didn't consider... but after all these years, I'm pretty much ready for 98% of everything.

The world *is* in motion. I know the general motivations of NPC's high and low, I know of possible conflicts that are brewing, and at Chargen I plug everyone's ideas into the mix, re-capitulate whatever we all agree on, then let'er rip. I don't lean super-heavy on random generators, but I *always* use them at some point. I'm generally pretty nimble of mind to make some shit up on the spot to keep things interesting.

But the PC's are the stars of the show, even when they choose to do what they want, and shit goes south in some other part of the sandbox because of it. That just becomes more conflict to deal with later. And *conflict is good* for Sandbox gaming.