[4E] Reigning in the Sandbox

[Oracle_Hunter]

So... my current campaign is hitting the skids - plot wise - but the Players are still having fun. Consider this post part meditation and part advice-seeking.

BACKGROUND

Spoiler

Show

For a change of pace, I wanted to run a more sandbox-y world than I usually do. I tried to get a sense of PC motivations with a pre-game survey (a good idea!) but I botched it by not spending enough time explaining the world to the Players. The world wasn't that different from base D&D, but I had several novice Players who could clearly could have used some more guidance. In the end the responses I got from everyone were too vague and varied for me to use. So I went with the second best approach: everyone is in this together - we'll figure out other motivations later.

This campaign has been going on for about six months now and I've thrown a variety of hooks in their general direction. This have, so far, worked poorly

Spoiler

Show

- The overarching plot based on the hook "Track down X, return him to Us" has suffered from the death of plot-important NPCs and an indifferent approach to its pursuit by the Players. Fine, it's a sandbox - let them play elsewhere until I can get a solid hook up they won't just kill

- The Constant Companions from the "caravan to explore the world" portion seemed to be of interest at the time, but now everyone has forgotten them.

- The hook to get them tied into a Order of Heroes was working fine until half the party just publicly quit said Order because some drunks in a bar made fun of them.

- The hook to get them working on some political intrigue (and legacy building) in a frontier town was largely ignored - even when I gave them implicit permission to rebuild a border fort!

I had a discussion with three of my Players last night to see what was going on. It turns out their motivation (respectively) are:
- Doing Something (Anything!)
- Killing Guys
- Free-form RP

My two other Players are a mixture of Plot Progression and Social Gaming - neither of which are particularly aggressive about it. In the end this means that two of my Players are apathetic to the (any?) Plot, while the other two are more passive - and so a lot of the game revolves around asking themselves "what do we do now?" while not actually interacting with the world in such a fashion that I can give them information.

In the end, my Players (collectively) have said they wanted some more structure - but not too much. It's odd to me that even after 5 levels of the campaign none of the Players seemed much interested in pursuing their characters' intersts. I've asked if they feel like I'm not giving them enough "free time" and they insist it isn't that - they just don't think about their characters' interests.

So, what to do? At this point, I'm tempted to just write up a classic Adventure Path (e.g. treasure map -> journey to dungeon -> killing monsters -> phat lewts) but that's not really what I'm interested in running. They're a lot of "work" (e.g. stat creation, treasure selection) without much fun (i.e. plot & character development) from my perspective. However, I have the hope that if I run these Players through a solid "shake-down" mission they might start having an interest in their characters.

Well, what do you think? Do I keep the "sandbox" open and just try to be a bit more aggressive with my plot hooks? Or should I book them passage on a Train to Adventure, appealing to the base instincts of "killing stuff" and "lewt?" Or is there a third way I haven't even conisdered?

[Crow]

If anybody comes up with something, I will appreciate it as well. I am trying to get a sandbox off the ground, but can't get my players to bite any hooks even though they are engaging the NPCs more meaningfully than I expected.

Sometimes I feel like I have to force-feed plots to them. I really don't want to railroad my players, damnit!

[Sipex]

Ask your players to revise their in character goals. In addition, ask for backstories from each of them and integrate them into the future. You will have to modify your world a bit (ie: place some towns if players expect them etc) but it may work.

Also, don't be afraid of tropes unless your players are vehimently against them. In my experience players love tropes because they understand what's going on and it's always awesome to hear about something then finally be a part of it.

(edit: Some railroading is necessary at first. You get your players interested in things then give them lots of options to cover sandbox after they've become more involved)

[TalonDemonKing]

Rather than -make- them do anything, present something that will make them -want- to do something.

Write up a dungeon. Treasuremap -> Kill things -> Phat lewt.

Except at the end, you introduce an individual. Make him kick their puppies, insult their hair color, whatever. If they get upset over a couple of drunks, you can make them get FURIOUS at this guy. Maybe have them fight.

Then have him escape.

The players will now have motive and drive to hunt down this individual. Wrap them in this story of revenge -- If they save the world on the way, whatever. This way they'll focus more of their free time on trying to find clues, hunting down individuals, maybe taking out his lesser lieuts, or generally aiming to take down this individual.

[Sploosh]

I've run into a similar problem with trying to "hook" players in sandbox zones. After a lot of thought, I decided I had two main options:

1) I could "up the ante" of my hooks, trying to get them to be more enticing and influential. In almost any such hook there is always a point where it becomes unbelievable to refuse. The problem is is that while you may be giving them a lot of choice in which hook they follow, the more enticing you make the hooks, the less free will they have to decide their own actions, which is usually the opposite of what people want in a sandbox.

2) You can instead switch your style to be more reactive. Tell me to describe their goals, and have them try to go obtain them. They'll be forced to make choices and interact with things and you can use those choices to push them along.

The latter of the two seems to be better, but with your current problem of not having character interests, it won't work. Thus, I propose you do neither of your stated choices and work on a third option ie. actual getting them to flesh out characters so it is easy to think like them.

Not only will getting more defined characters help you with hooking them and/or simply having them be proactive, but it should also make the roleplay aspects of the game more enjoyable as well.

[Kurald Galain]

Have the hooks attack them, then see if they're willing to chase?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Ask your players to revise their in character goals. In addition, ask for backstories from each of them and integrate them into the future. You will have to modify your world a bit (ie: place some towns if players expect them etc) but it may work.

Also, don't be afraid of tropes unless your players are vehimently against them. In my experience players love tropes because they understand what's going on and it's always awesome to hear about something then finally be a part of it.

(edit: Some railroading is necessary at first. You get your players interested in things then give them lots of options to cover sandbox after they've become more involved)

Ha! Me, afraid of Tropes?

Anyhow, it's not that I didn't give them a kick in the ass to get started. I went with the classic "You Have Debt" plot and sent them into the middle of the main continent as part of the Caravan portion of the campaign.

I am tempted to ask for a revised set of backstories now that the Players have experienced the world a bit but I hestitate because I don't know what good it would do. One Player doesn't care about his backstory - he's on his second character after his first died and he didn't want to raise him - and a second Player explicitly wrote an Amnesia backstory (a "baby robot" as he puts it) and doesn't seem to want to develop any sort of broader purpose aside from acquiring a Delver's Light and a Docent (he's a Warforged). Ironically, when he had the chance to buy one from a local Artificer he instead spent the majority of the party's money on a Cloak of the Walking Wounded

By and large, nobody seems too interested in world-building - and in any case, they're all well away from home. Currently they're adventuring in the heart of the Old Empire that fell to Infernal influences and is mostly overrun by Gnolls, Cambions and actual Devils. Perhaps a trip to a Wretched Hive is in order? I mean, they already were in one and managed to kill everyone they could - and then get driven out of town by the guys they couldn't kill

EDIT: @Kurald Galain - ah, vengence. Yes, that worked best in the past - but then they just murdered everyone under guise of parley

And no, they're not Evil, although one Player did say "but you never give us an opportunity to be Good." I then pointed out to him that he had just quit an organization devoted to doing nothing but Good. A good quote to summarize the situation is this:

Spoiler

Show

Warforged: If there was an orphanage on fire, I would totally run in to save the children!

Me: Would you do it to save the children, or just to show off your "cool robot powers?"

Warforged: To show off my cool robot powers, of course.

Me:

[Sipex]

It sounds like you have a conflict of interests.

Give them black & white reasons to be good and "Show off their stuff". Also, I like the antagonist idea, give them a rival (party,individual,organisation,whatever) and have the campaign revolve around that.

The PCs get a job only to find, at the end, that the rival party is there and takes the object and their job.

If you can get your pcs going "I hate those guys so much!" you've succeeded.

[Balain]

I don't know if this will help much. I have a main goal in mind and have adventures I use to get them there, but for the most part they are free to run off and do side quests which I give some hooks here and there for other things. Sometimes they get into trouble all on their own and adventure just follows.

[Kyeudo]

I've currently got a semi-sandbox running. My players are investigating the plot hooks I've thrown at them, but for personal motivations, and I think they realize that if they just dropped the plot and headed off to explore I'd take it and run with it. A sand-box game requires a lot of effort on the part of the players, because they are the ones driving the action, not the GM, and if they don't realize that, the game won't go anywhere.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It sounds like you have a conflict of interests.

Give them black & white reasons to be good and "Show off their stuff". Also, I like the antagonist idea, give them a rival (party,individual,organisation,whatever) and have the campaign revolve around that.

The PCs get a job only to find, at the end, that the rival party is there and takes the object and their job.

If you can get your pcs going "I hate those guys so much!" you've succeeded.

...I just did that.

Set up a rival group of adventurers (with a Main Plot Hook embedded!) which only "got there first" because none of the Players thought to check behind a tapestry (much less "Search the Room") to find a concealed door. The Rivals then got back to town with the loot and spent the time mocking the Order of which the PCs were members.

The PCs then proceeded to walk into the bar and they...

Spoiler

Show

(1) Bad mouth their own organization

(2) Made a blatant lie that their Good & Just Order had accepted a bribe to take a dive to the Rivals

(3) One member loudly quit the Order and gave his insignia over to the allies of the Rivals

...all without actually meeting the Rivals!

And then they skipped town to follow another plot point. At least they're planning on sneaking back into town and stealing the trophy that the Rivals had been parading around

[Anonomuss]

One thing that might help, is a house rule I found here.

Get each player to come up with a list of three things either they want to do in the campaign or things they want their character to do. The examples given on the site are just some of the things that can come up.

For example, I've just begun an Eberron campaign, and two of my characters now have long term goals that they thought of, that I can facilitate and I've plenty of side quests I can now do alongside the main "tracks" of my campaign.

I think the important part to it though, is that it gets the players thinking about what they want to do. Which I think is especially important in a sandbox game.

[Sipex]

...I just did that.

Set up a rival group of adventurers (with a Main Plot Hook embedded!) which only "got there first" because none of the Players thought to check behind a tapestry (much less "Search the Room") to find a concealed door. The Rivals then got back to town with the loot and spent the time mocking the Order of which the PCs were members.

The PCs then proceeded to walk into the bar and they...

Spoiler

Show

(1) Bad mouth their own organization

(2) Made a blatant lie that their Good & Just Order had accepted a bribe to take a dive to the Rivals

(3) One member loudly quit the Order and gave his insignia over to the allies of the Rivals

...all without actually meeting the Rivals!

And then they skipped town to follow another plot point. At least they're planning on sneaking back into town and stealing the trophy that the Rivals had been parading around

This would be an issue of "You needed the PCs to do something to advance the plot and they didn't" which I would advise against. It's a cop out but next time they don't get it, put it somewhere else. Or just give it to them somehow.

"You enter the room and find that a secret door you didn't see earlier is left wide open." (this is reasonable as the rivals came through)

That said, can't undo the past. Play off the rivals more, maybe force another conflict. Just keep putting the pressure on so your PCs really hate those guys.

edit: make them stereotypical jerks if need be

[Oracle_Hunter]

This would be an issue of "You needed the PCs to do something to advance the plot and they didn't" which I would advise against. It's a cop out but next time they don't get it, put it somewhere else. Or just give it to them somehow.

"You enter the room and find that a secret door you didn't see earlier is left wide open." (this is reasonable as the rivals came through)

That said, can't undo the past. Play off the rivals more, maybe force another conflict. Just keep putting the pressure on so your PCs really hate those guys.

edit: make them stereotypical jerks if need be

So, two things

(1) The tapestry thing was just that. When they failed to investigate the room, they decided to explore the other tunnels and had an exciting combat with some of the kobolds that lived down there. By the time they got back to check the room, the Rivals had been through, ransacking everything, and revealing the secret door.

So yeah, I did that.

(2) The Rivals are total jerks, but it doesn't matter because the Players never got to meet them - they just walked away when they were loudly mocked by drunks.

...well, at least I'm already doing the "reasonable" stuff

[Sipex]

So, two things

(1) The tapestry thing was just that. When they failed to investigate the room, they decided to explore the other tunnels and had an exciting combat with some of the kobolds that lived down there. By the time they got back to check the room, the Rivals had been through, ransacking everything, and revealing the secret door.

So yeah, I did that.

(2) The Rivals are total jerks, but it doesn't matter because the Players never got to meet them - they just walked away when they were loudly mocked by drunks.

...well, at least I'm already doing the "reasonable" stuff

Perfect time then, make the rivals know who the PCs are and force a confrontation where the PCs meet them. Have the PCs find out 'These are the guys who took our job!' and then show off how jerky they are.

[Amphetryon]

I've said this before: Sandbox means different things to different people. I've seen players vehemently rebel against any plot hook placed before them in such a game, using the objection "We're supposed to be in a Sandbox campaign, so we're not interested in your prefabricated plot." In some cases, this included plot hooks that were laid out expressly to forward stated character goals.

In your case, I don't think it's to that extreme. Because they've actively requested a bit more structure, you might consider actively 'forcing' one of their stated character goals upon one or more of them, and letting the game progress from their reaction. If one of them wants to be the ruler of the Duchy of Duckington, have the current ruler die, with his immediate heir as a dead ringer for the interested party member. When the folks of the duchy begin reacting to him as if he is the new Duke, plot happens.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Perfect time then, make the rivals know who the PCs are and force a confrontation where the PCs meet them. Have the PCs find out 'These are the guys who took our job!' and then show off how jerky they are.

I'm really tempted for the PC's former Order to hire the Rivals to hunt down the PCs and bring them in for questioning.

It'd be too out of character, unfortunately, but that's a plot point that will be resolved when they get to it. At this point I'm thinking they'll settle down after resolving this side-plot but then... I don't know if I should introduce more side plots! They either distract the PCs to immobility or get immediately forgotten.

Hell, they just left an NPC they liked enough to rezz twice in town without even saying goodbye. When I asked them about him later they said "oh, well we figured he knew where we lived and would have shown up on his own." They didn't even mention his name that whole session!

EDIT: @ Amphetryon - just so.

Spoiler

Show

My only concern is how to balance the "we need rails - but not too much rail" sentiment I'm getting out of them. I've gamed with these guys in the past (as a Player) with a DM who is a solid railroader. He's gotten better, but watching these Players in that game they seem to cotton just fine to being railroaded from one plot point to another.

That said, I know that at least one Player wants the chance to do wacky things - he's the one who came up with the "we'll steal the trophy" idea - so I want to leave room for him as well. I dunno - big rails for the Plot, but let them arrange the furniture in the train as they'd like it?

Also: I don't think they're the rebel types. Whenever I say "what do you want to do?" they don't just say "anything else!" but they usually sit around for 30 min (real time) arguing about what to do next - and usually it's just a matter of picking between plot hooks they happen to remember at the time.

[bokodasu]

Some people need a good train ride before they're ready to step off onto the platform. Or some metaphorical thing like that. Although it sounds like you gave your characters a good start and they're still kind of floundering; do they really *want* to be in a sandbox game?

If so, I'd recommend zombies. Not literal D&D ones, but some sort of big, impersonal, nigh-unstoppable force. Volcanoes are good, or plagues, or political revolution, or, yes, actual zombies. You can bring whatever it is forward whenever you want, and if the characters do start developing their own goals, you can let it fade into the background. (The volcano is done and life is starting to get back to normal, the plague runs its course, the zombies disolve into sticky goo.) And if they don't, hey, there's always more zombies.

And if not, I still recommend zombies, except this time more literal ones. Really, there are very few things that aren't made better with zombies.

[Britter]

Have the consequences of the things they don't deal with or choose to walk away from come back to them and hit them hard.

Ideally, hit them hard by having those consequences affect things and/or people the characters care for. Goad them, mock them, threaten them with all sorts of negative ramifications, and hound them to the ends of the earth until they pick a point and take a stand.

Essentially, find out what they believe in. Then force them to fight for it, and see what they are really made off. If they keep running away from chances to defend what they claim to believe in or care about, then destroy it.

Please note that I don't mean that you, as a person, should attack the players as people. But you should make life as difficult for the characters as possible. Let them know that if they keep backing down, things they care about will be lost. Ask them why they are so willing to let that happen. Make those answers have weight and importance in the setting. You are not trying to be adverserial or a killer DM. You are just forcing them to stand for something.

Talk about what they want, like, care about, and would defend in the game. Make the process dynamic.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Essentially, find out what they believe in. Then force them to fight for it, and see what they are really made off. If they keep running away from chances to defend what they claim to believe in or care about, then destroy it.

A fair point.

But, as a caveat - for some reason I have a reputation as a Killer DM amongst my Players.

Spoiler

Show

While it is true that two of their PCs have died within 5 levels of play, but to be fair that was the natural consequence of taking on a floor of gnolls and then walking right into the Boss Battle without taking a Short Rest.

"The Gnoll Keep" adventure was kind of rough on them, but as Players they say they enjoyed the challenge and actually don't cite it as a reason for their playstyle.

What I'm saying is that my Players really worry about making "mistakes" in my game. I'll admit that I bring the "natural consequences of their actions" to bear with some frequency but again, they say that's a good thing.

Anyhow, I'm trying to figure out how to tone down my rep which - apparently - I haven't done anything (recently) to earn. This is another reason I worry about being too aggressive with my DMing: if the Players are already prone to spooking, then they may end up depressed and frightened after running from every line-drive that comes their way.

Which, of course, is weird considering how often they have a "kick down the door" approach to life.

Spoiler

Show

For example, the reason they fled town was actually to pursue a "witch" who had been making Warforged using human sacrifice and devils - something I threw in to hook The Warforged and has been preoccupying him ever since. However, they don't know anything about this "witch" expect that she was working with a Warlock who had co-researching this "Hellforged" process and had been trading parts for wealth & magic. Naturally, when they found the Warlock they murdered him dead instead of asking for directions to the "witch's" secret base - somewhere in an enchanted swamp.

Well, the PCs ride 3 days out of their base town to the town nearest to the swamp and then swim out to the edge of the swamp... and then stand there. They never bothered to research Rituals, or even ask one of the numerous NPCs they know who live in the swamp if they can help track her down. Instead, they stand knee-deep in muck until I remind them of a particular amulet they stole from the corpse of the Warlock which can communicate with the Witch.

I don't know about you, but this sort of behavior sends warning bells in my head. What sort of Party says "let's kill the Witch!" and then travels for 3 days to stand at the edge of a swamp without a thought in their head as to how to find her?

I don't think I'm sending bad signals. Perhaps I just need to be a more "active" DM and before my Players go off half-cocked I need to be the one to ask them "how do you plan to do this?" But... that's not normal, is it? Isn't it the job of the Players to figure out how they want to do missions, and what sort of planning they need to do?

EDIT: @bokodasu - I had thought I had given them a good train-ride with the Caravan from Start Town to Plotsville but once they got to Plotsville they ran out of steam. I'm thinking that if I put them on another train for "gold & glory" by the time they finish it I can pull out my Zombie Volcano - as you put it

The funny thing is that the "main plot" for this game is a strictly Heroic Level one. My original plan was that after they got around to resolving the Heroic Plot they'd be free of their original Debt (which drove them to adventure) and then could think of what they wanted to do next. It might be worthwhile to layer on a Paragon Plot at the end of the next train, since IMHO Paragon Plots are perfect for Zombie Volcano games

[Crow]

I feel your pain. My group travelled across half the kingdom to find evidence against the BBEGirl and once they had it, decided it was "nice, but nothing we could really do anything about".

It was evidence that the BBEGirl had murdered a member of the nobility and assumed their identity.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I feel your pain. My group travelled across half the kingdom to find evidence against the BBEGirl and once they had it, decided it was "nice, but nothing we could really do anything about".

It was evidence that the BBEGirl had murdered a member of the nobility and assumed their identity.

That can be a legitimate problem.

Spoiler

Show

In a Sabbat oWoD Vampire game I was playing in, the DM gave us evidence of some high-level Sabbat plotting against each other as a plot hook.

Our response? "Well, we each have these terrifying Mentor/Sires you saddled us with, so I guess we tell them? We're neonates - what the crap are we supposed to do?"

She was less than pleased. Apparently we were supposed to go behind the backs of our Sire/Mentors and solve this problem on our own. As Sabbat.

The ST was very new so I sat her down after the game fell apart and told her one of my DMing Secrets: watch out for games where the Players can legitimately say "so what?" to your Big Reveal

Did your PCs at least try to contact the guy who gave them this mission? That's what my Party in a 8th Century Fantasy Wales D&D4 game is doing:

Spoiler

Show

We discovered evidence that one of the three princes is plotting against the king so we passed that information onto our Noble Sponsor and busy ourselves with trying to track down the Prince's Evil Organization.

For the record, our party consists of two Fey (distrusted by mortals), a filthy peasant, a stranded Viking, and me - the daughter of a low-status noble who joined the Church as a Paladin. Not exactly the sort of crew you want mucking around with Affairs of State

[Blue Paladin]

In the end the responses I got from everyone were too vague and varied for me to use.

No such thing. Throw them up here on the board and you can get a bunch of suggestions from even the vaguest player backstory.

Vague is awesome, because it lets you mess with them even more.

The overarching plot based...

Stop. This is a sandbox, right? Then there is no overarching plot. There are instead many plots that the players can get hooked into. But there is no right or wrong story to get involved with. It's up to the players to decide to engage with any particular plot, or ignore it. Or start to get involved and then back out and go do something else. My party did that a lot...

That said, the presence and absence of the PCs should have meaningful impact on how that plot unfolds. If they don't do anything, A happens. If they do do something, well, B might happen, or C, or maybe even A still happens.

[One of the players] explicitly wrote an Amnesia backstory (a "baby robot" as he puts it) and doesn't seem to want to develop any sort of broader purpose aside from acquiring a Delver's Light and a Docent (he's a Warforged).

I can work with this. In addition to whatever they might encounter at the time, somewhere around Round 3, bring in a Warforged. It sees the PC and shouts, "[PC Name, possibly with additional title the player has never heard of]! I've finally tracked you down! Now give me back the [Delver's Light/Docent] that you stole from me!" and attack (not necessarily to kill, but rather for a grab/pin/search type thing). Make sure the newly introduced NPC has a teleport ability/more movement speed than the party, so it can run away successfully if bloodied. If fought off, make sure there's lots of fist-shaking with a "I'll get you next time!". If it ends with a search that comes up empty, drop the PC and say, "It's no use. No matter where you've hidden it, I will get it back!" and stomp off.

Now your PC should have a few questions: A) who was that, and how did they know me? B) why does he think I have his [thingy that I want]? C) Why don't I remember ever having his [thingy that I want]? and D) Why don't I have his [thingy that I want] now? Since this applies directly to his goals, he should have ample reason to go digging around his past. And now you have to think of why he would give up his beloved stolen [thingy] and wipe his own memory. Lots of possibilities.

As for your non-backstory-having PC, have you seen the television show Firefly? Jaynestown. Only built around him instead. Let the other PCs grill him as to why he has a town hero-worshipping him. Again, lots of possibilities. It doesn't even have to really be him! Just another dude who looks exactly like him. Long-lost twin? Doppelganger??

[I] can't get my players to bite any hooks even though they are engaging the NPCs more meaningfully than I expected.

Sometimes I feel like I have to force-feed plots to them.

If they bite, they bite. If they don't, they don't. If they are letting the world around them pass them by, then let the world pass them by. If they then complain about not having anything to do, they have only themselves to blame.

One of the main tenets that I stuck to when running my own sandbox game (and I know, everyone has a different style; there's no "one way" to do things) was that everything moves forward. I thought of various scenarios, and how they would unfold over time. Multiple storylines that may or may not overlap. Some were entirely separate; others tightly woven together. I made sure there was a beginning set-up, a middle (usually drama of some sort happened here: someone is betrayed, killed, revealed), and an end (usually a Bad End, just cause I'm a fatalist like that).

Now, are you familiar with the show Quantum Leap? The party is Sam Beckett. They can alter events by joining in any of the stories, at any point. If they work from the beginning of a story to the end, it can lead to a totally different ending (hopefully a Good End), often something entirely new that I as a DM did not even think of. If they only meddle in a story for a short amount of time, then most likely that story will lead (eventually) to its originally planned (downer) ending. The time frame might be thrown off by days, weeks, months or even years, depending on how much the party actually does (e.g. the Beggar King succession devolved into war because they didn't do anything with that story at all; the Wind Demon invasion happened pretty much on schedule because they barely did anything in that storyline; the assassination of Count Pridestorm was delayed by months and ended up being carried out by an entirely different group because the party was actively involved in the southern areas for weeks).

But if the party hung around doing nothing for two weeks, then all of the plots advanced by two weeks. The world continues to move forward, even if the party doesn't.

[Britter]

Gotcha. They are afraid to take chances. The only way to combat that is to make the failures interesting, and make success or failure a process they are fully invested in.

Maybe you could set a ground rule of some sort, something like the Death Flag rule found in the "raising the Stakes" part of E6 (in short, the players can only die if they tell the DM "this matter to me, I am raising the death flag". They get some plot tokens [in 4e this could be represented by a full refresh of all powers and the addition of some APs] and they are vulnerable to dying as per book rules.) This allows the players to know that, even if they fail, they won't die. This frees you as the DM up to creating very interesting situations where the failure condition is not death, but is instead something more interesting.

[Oracle_Hunter]

No such thing. Throw them up here on the board and you can get a bunch of suggestions from even the vaguest player backstory.

Well... here's a collection of answers to the question "Name two things your character would like to accomplish, in the short-to-medium term"

Spoiler

Show

Warforged
- An appreciation for what constitutes squishy "humor"
- Greater understanding of what connects one fleshbag to another

Deva
[Deva] has taken, in the years leading up to the campaign, a very cynical view on the world. He has spent most of his time in the equivalent to inner city hospitals helping to heal those in need. Because of this He has only seen the pain and suffering of the outside world. Many of those that he helps return to the hospital within a fortnight due to some self destructive tendency or another. Something that he desperately seeks is to see some permanent good come to the world. A Warlord dethroned or even a town saved for good from some roaming bandits.

The more immature (or undecided) side of [Deva] wants to live a little. Make some gold, enjoy the finery and foods that he was never allowed by his elders in the monastery. he will always jump at the opportunity to live the "high life"

Drow
A strong movement of Drow that will re-establish the colonies above ground.

An elf that will see that the Drow have suffered enough and agree that it is time for them to leave the dark.

Goliath
He definitely needs to kill, or facilitate the killing, of that Stupid Paladin. Beyond that he wants to visit home, and be confident enough in his skills that he would be able to escape. It wouldn't be entirely for the purpose of gloating...then again it mostly would.

...OK, maybe I see my problem. While some of these are vague to the point of uselessness, I haven't done much with the much more specific ones. Then again, I've not seen any of my Players make any independent action towards these goals.

Feh, that's still my problem. Well, looks like it's time to try this thing again. I dunno why I assumed it all was garbage - it certainly looked that way the last time I read it

Stop. This is a sandbox, right? Then there is no overarching plot. There are instead many plots that the players can get hooked into. But there is no right or wrong story to get involved with. It's up to the players to decide to engage with any particular plot, or ignore it. Or start to get involved and then back out and go do something else. My party did that a lot...

Meh, the overarching plot is merely Plot A - the thing that got their butts out the door and needs to be resolved (one way or another) within a year of game-time. It's hardly the only plot out there; it isn't even a plot that will blow up the world if the PCs never touch it again.

There's no worse way (IMHO) to start off a sandbox than say "here's the world - what do you want to do?"

[Britter]

Feh, that's still my problem. Well, looks like it's time to try this thing again. I dunno why I assumed it all was garbage - it certainly looked that way the last time I read it

Don't worry. Sometimes it takes a little discussion and debate to get the ideas flowing. An outside perspective can really shake things loose.

There's no worse way (IMHO) to start off a sandbox than say "here's the world - what do you want to do?"

Oh so very true. Recipe for disaster.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Don't worry. Sometimes it takes a little discussion and debate to get the ideas flowing. An outside perspective can really shake things loose.

Well of course! If I didn't want to hear outside perspectives, I wouldn't have placed the problem out here on the Internet

I'm just a little sad that I've been effectively ignoring all kinds of useful tidbits which I asked my Players to give me before we even started. A good DM asks his Players for input and then listens to that input!

...I do kind of wonder if the Players remember what they sent me. Well, I'll try to weave one of those into the planned Train Ride and see if that leaves my party in any better shape.

[Britter]

I find it is really worth the effort to take 15-30 minutes post session to ask the players what they want to work towards next time, and take 5-10 minutes pre-session to remind them of what they found important enough to pursue last time, and ask if that has changed. keep those important plot points and character goals in front of them as often as possible, so they don't forget about them.

It is sometimes worth ti to assign some sort of bonus xp/plot token/etc to someone willing to write up a session recap that focuses on what the group did and why, so that there is a reminder between sessions of what they found important.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I find it is really worth the effort to take 15-30 minutes post session to ask the players what they want to work towards next time, and take 5-10 minutes pre-session to remind them of what they found important enough to pursue last time, and ask if that has changed. keep those important plot points and character goals in front of them as often as possible, so they don't forget about them.

It is sometimes worth ti to assign some sort of bonus xp/plot token/etc to someone willing to write up a session recap that focuses on what the group did and why, so that there is a reminder between sessions of what they found important.

I don't really use XP anymore - they level at the completion of each Arc (usually 2-3 sessions).

I do have post-game sessions when I have the time, and always encourage the Players to remind themselves what happened last time while I get set up. I usually field questions during the pre-game, but since one of the Players likes to keep a journal they usually have the gist of it.

I... don't like emphasizing plot points because it feels like I'm "ordering" them to pursue one or another. I have been tempted to get a small white board to write "ongoing quests" on it but I still believe it is up to the Players to remember what they're doing and why they're doing it.

[Crow]

That can be a legitimate problem.

Spoiler

Show

In a Sabbat oWoD Vampire game I was playing in, the DM gave us evidence of some high-level Sabbat plotting against each other as a plot hook.

Our response? "Well, we each have these terrifying Mentor/Sires you saddled us with, so I guess we tell them? We're neonates - what the crap are we supposed to do?"

She was less than pleased. Apparently we were supposed to go behind the backs of our Sire/Mentors and solve this problem on our own. As Sabbat.

The ST was very new so I sat her down after the game fell apart and told her one of my DMing Secrets: watch out for games where the Players can legitimately say "so what?" to your Big Reveal

Did your PCs at least try to contact the guy who gave them this mission? That's what my Party in a 8th Century Fantasy Wales D&D4 game is doing:

Spoiler

Show

We discovered evidence that one of the three princes is plotting against the king so we passed that information onto our Noble Sponsor and busy ourselves with trying to track down the Prince's Evil Organization.

For the record, our party consists of two Fey (distrusted by mortals), a filthy peasant, a stranded Viking, and me - the daughter of a low-status noble who joined the Church as a Paladin. Not exactly the sort of crew you want mucking around with Affairs of State

They hadn't even been told to go look for the evidence. An NPC gave them a hint and they followed up on it, on their own, at great expense to themselves because they hate this B****, then once they had it, just sort of gave up...

I was floored. So I did the natural thing, and let the bad guy win.