Salvaging a dead campaign

[weckar]

So, I want to keep this rather short, as to limit the splurge of frustration.

My group is, for better or for worse, used to low-level settings and 'A - to - B "What do we kill"' type adventures.

I offered them a couple of months ago to run a game in a grander setting with a more sandboxy feel, where events will progress even without their interference.

This has thus far been a bit of a disaster, as the players are often not really doing anything without an NPC pushing them in any direction, to the point that they have complained about not seeing the plot in several sessions.

Now, I must admit that this is partially my fault as I am obviously not providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions in the world. In order to 'remedy' this - and partially out of frustration - I literally handed them a deux-ex-machina divine info dump at the end of the last session. This has left me in a sour mood and not entirely thinking that I should be DMing this party.

This leaves me in a bit of a pickle. On one hand the best thing to do would be to mercy kill the whole campaign. On the other hand I don't want to waste the effort me and the players have already put in for the last few months, and even though the game is a bit of a drag they all seem to really like their characters.

So, yeah, advice... Got any?

[zyggythorn]

How sandbox are we talking here? Like plop them in a place and run wild? Or learn as you go sort of thing?

As it is, you may do better running it as a sort of "choose your target" chain of quests rather than a straight sandbox.
Offer the players between 2 and 4 mini-arcs that would likely not cross paths, and once they finish that particular arc, repeat the process. It will get them used to more options and uncertainty, whilst avoiding info-dumping on your end.

[LTwerewolf]

I have an open sandbox setting but not an open sandbox campaign. Let me explain. If they should decide to take it upon themselves to explore and interact on their own accord, I have material for them they can go with. They can learn about the cultures I set up, they can find dungeons that were lost to time, etc. In fact, right now my party is in a kingdom that had sunk into the plain to where it could not be seen from any appreciable distance that was lost 4 millennia ago. Lots of fun stuff there.

But I can't rely on the idea that they're going to go and do those types of things. I have an over-arcing story, where if they should choose, they can just follow the quests they're given and complete the campaign. Anything they don't see, I simply save for the next campaign. I've been running the same setting for over a decade now, and there are some things I still haven't used, which is ok. A sandbox gives the option, and I feel shouldn't give the necessity of open exploration. Throw together a storyline for them to follow if they just want to be told what to do, and ease them into it over time.

[Janthkin]

Offer the players between 2 and 4 mini-arcs that would likely not cross paths, and once they finish that particular arc, repeat the process. It will get them used to more options and uncertainty, whilst avoiding info-dumping on your end.This, but the available quests need to change over time - sometimes, the problem won't wait for the heroes to get around to solving it. This gives you the feel of a world advancing without the PCs direct attention, sometimes for the worse.

[Fizban]

Indeed, I've seen the same problem happen every time the game stops showing a clear path. Personally I'd be more inclined to blame the players for not taking action, but if you think you shorted them on information then you probably did. The above posters have already given the solution: run it both ways, make sure they have at least one concrete path and just keep dropping side ideas until they bite, eventually they should get used to the idea of picking their own route.