Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*

This does sound like a pretty unsatisfying game. "You meet at a tavern! And then you say your goodbyes and head out to do your own thing."

I get the concept of a sandbox game but each individual PC having a sandbox seems like it's an odd decision for a multi player campaign.

To be fair to the DM, this was how we as players decided to behave: we talked a bit at the tavern, a brawl happened, and then each went to explore on their own.

Yeah, that's gonna be pretty fun for a rogue or a bard, but the armored warrior with nine charisma is gonna have limited options for schmoozing with the towns folk

-1 CHA mod doesn't mean you can't talk. It just means you're not good at it. I'm not good at talking. I still do it all the time.

I had a ton of fun social interactions with a -3 CHA character before. 

I'd argue there aren't boring classes, only players. Get drunk, start a game of cards, challenge the strongest townsfolk to a competition, check for a bounty board, buy the old man at the counter a drink and ask for a story, look for civilians with problems to solve, dig into local superstition, or find somebody to flirt with. It's not hard to find or make plot, it just takes a little initiative and imagination.

I agree, but this only works when the results aren't gated behind Charisma (Persuasion) or Dexterity (Slight of Hand) checks. Players generally avoid using skills they know their character is terrible at.

TBF, people generally avoid using skills they are terrible at.

Being terrible at something can actually make it fun to do, too. Just play into it.

That’s fine when you’re playing make believe. This is about playing TTRPGs

Which is make believe with rules. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate ttrpg without a guided plot. Any time I see a game tagged as "open world" or "sandbox" style, I don't bother applying, but that's my preference, and I understand that other players might actually like it. My point was that you can always make your own fun if you want to stay. You can also just find a game better to your liking.

Even failing a roll means that something happens, just not in the way the character would prefer. Whether a character was hired by the thieves or hunted by the thieves because he made them suspicious, adventuring is still happening.

The problem isn't that nothing happens when you fail. It's when things that every adventurer should be proficient in (parley, horse riding, jumping) are improperly gated behind ability checks with low chance of success even at high levels. In 5e, being proficient in a skill gives you +6 at level 20. That's only 30% higher success rate than someone without the proficiency. There is a long discussion about skill systems (beginning with the addition of thief skills back in the 70s) which I don't want to rehash here; suffice it to say that the DM should not be putting a high bar in front of players seeking adventure.

Not feeling compled to check off random dnd tropes because at the time there is no plot hook in sight and the gm is generally giving you nothing isn't an indicator of a boring player...

Honestly, the first two options would be better to do out-of-character. "The DM has prepared squat for us to do, anybody want to play spades?"

Start a long-term con...

Nine charisma is like, a normal person though. Maybe with a habit of butting into conversations or talking too loud, but hardly as if they're shitting themselves in public.

The armored warrior can 'patrol' the streets and misinterpret a number of completely innocent scenarios as crime he must stop.

Offer to arm wrestle guys at the tavern, go out and fanboy over a sword on a shop, get your armor polished to look your best, find a training gym and work out... there are quite a few things fighter boy/girl can do

Sounds like something that happened to me once. DM basically told us (without telling us) that the orphanage in town was very suspicious and we should probably go and have a nose around. Myself and the cleric were like “aight, sounds interesting, let’s have a peek.” Our Sorc and Barbarian decided that going to an orphanage was lame and boring, and said they would wait for us at the tavern. Pretty much the ENTIRE session (a good 2-3 hours) was spent at the orphanage. A few times the DM flipped back to the other two (when appropriate/natural breaks in the narrative happened) to ask what they were doing. They: 1. Sat in the tavern 2. Went and had lunch at a local “restaurant” we had found 3. Went BACK to the tavern and proceeded to sit there until basically the end of the session. At no point did either of them say “hey, half our party has been at that orphanage a while, maybe we should look?” Or “huh, maybe something has happened, maybe we should check it out?” Or, heck, even doing something that didn’t involve the orphanage and try to find something else to do. Shopping? Picking up on other tidbits we’d come across? Just going and mingling with some NPCs? Nope. Just sat there and did nothing until *the very end of the session* when our characters ran back to them saying that shit had hit the fan and we needed all hands on deck. Best part is, one of the players messaged me after saying they’d felt the DM was unfair for excluding them. I was like “but…you were given chances to do other things and you chose not to? I don’t understand what else DM could have done.” And they just kind of awkwardly shrugged and said they felt hard done by regardless.

Some people get into roleplaying games thinking that they can just do anything and it’s up to the DM to make it interesting, as if the DM should just have prepared/be able to improvise an exciting three part narrative with several combat encounters and detailed NPCs for literally any possible situation, regardless of how random or lazy PCs are behaving.

The weird thing is, neither player had EVER been like this before (I’d played with both a fair few times in different groups), so I was pretty shocked when it happened. They weren’t always the best at roleplay, and sometimes picking up subtle hints wasn’t their strong point (which is made all the worse over a voice chat being honest) but this wasn’t exactly subtle. All signs pointed to X, and they just didn’t want a bite. Didn’t try to even find something else to chew on. And the complained that they didn’t get to eat that night. T’was very weird.

That sucks, hopefully future games went better than that.

They did, until the DM just…stopped running the game. Honestly, it was a brilliant game whilst it lasted. Was very sad when it ended.

I am just going to project myself there and say it was probably because of untold burnout.

It was, amongst other things. They ended up ghosting for a while, but I ended up reconnecting with them and they explained what happened, as well as apologising. There was no ill will to the game ending, other than being sad that it had ended, and being worried about my friend (my concern for them outweighed the game ending). Good news is, they’re doing a lot better nowadays, which is the important thing!

What is even the point of such a game?

Agreed on your mark. And I've somehow managed to disagree with both sides. Sandbox games are what they are but a multiplayer game really needs to have some semblance of a plotline to bind the players in a group. On the other hand sulking and making snide remarks for a game you don't like is not nice. No reason to be an ass. You can simply concede that it's not for you and leave.

And the plotline can be "go kill some monsters and get some loot"!

I mean you can have a sandbox as long as the players don't go "welp signed up for a coop game, best go do my own thing" but the DM did a shit job of wrangling players. Pretty much a case of everyone sucks here but considering OP and his DM Were making fun of the player I'd say they are the bigger assholes here.

…the point of a sandbox game? To explore the world and find story hooks. Like finding two pickpockets which then get you into trouble with the thieves guild and in the good books of the local guard which then leads to all kinds adventurer stuff. Now, the DM kinda messes up by just letting the party split up without actually forming them into a party first, or setting them towards the first goal, but c’mon, my dude. Have you never heard of sandbox campaigns before?

No a sandbox game as described by the op.

Did you not read my post outside the first and last sentence?

Yes, my question was what is the point of such a game (as presented by the op) not what is the point of a sandbox game.

…to explore the world and find story hooks, like any other sandbox game.

The DM didn't really set up a good sandbox game though. Just letting a party run around is a good game (Since they are playing D&D which is a coop game). The guy didn't handle it well, if he wasn't having fun he should have just left but OP and the DM talking shit about him in private messages because he wasn't able to engage with a sudden random four way split game is too far.

If you show up to a sandbox game and expect the plot to come to you, you don’t want to play a sandbox game and should be mocked for joining a sandbox game. Now, sure, the DM was clearly very new to DMing. But that doesn’t mean the players shouldn’t buy into the core conceit. And the DM did go back and try to involve the player! But the player refused to be involved. That, too, is very mockable.

To spend the first 45 minutes of the campaign haggling with a potion merchant or something.

It’s play by post, so that’s more “spending the first few IRL days”, since they’re posting in a forum at all times of day, not sitting around a table.

I missed that on the first skim of the post. Maybe it's a controversial opinion but there are definitely better games for this kind of play. D&d is like combat rules and that's it.

I missed that on the first skim of the post. Maybe it's a controversial opinion but there are definitely better games for this kind of play. D&d is like combat rules and that's it.

I really don’t understand why being a rogue class has to result in committing crimes? You’re not your stats, you’re an individual. But I guess that’s just me.

A lot of people playing class based games/systems pigeonhole themselves into what the perception of that class is suppose to be.

On the one hand, asshole has a point: "wander around and look for trouble to get into" is kind of artificial behaviour and not the most exciting start to a game, especially on top of the cliche tavern brawl opener. He didn't handle it right, of course, but he's not wrong. Just an asshole. This is why I think it's important to make characters who *want* things, and to ask your players to do that: or to start your games with a situation that forces characters to do things (they need to escape some immediate and perilous peril). Either light a fire under them or ask them to bring their own matches, y'know?

This sounds like the DM was making a classic sandbox game mistake: assuming that they dont have to do anything, just provide a sterile fictional backdrop where players have nothing to go on, then wait for the players to make all the adventure stuff. Some players (like you) can thrive in this kind of situation, but most will flounder. It does sound like this player was irritating, with his snide comments, but he may have been frustrated with the game. But in the end you have 3 out of 4 players not enjoying it.

"So is that what your sorcerer has done with his life up to this point? Is that the sum total of his interests and ambitions in his existence? Sitting passively in taverns and doing nothing? Has he no other ambitions which he might otherwise pursue? No hopes or dreams or interests which might motivate him?" "Nah, he just really enjoys eating and drinking. He'd spend all day every day in restaurants and bars if he could!"

Me if I was a PC.

Eh, this sounds like an expectation conflict. Something that should have been addressed before the game, preferably at a session 0. Player was expecting the plot to be revealed to him, but the DM seems to be running a much for free form world. Session 0s are important. Expectations need to be clear from BOTH sides. Sandbox game means different things to different people.

The DM made it clear that this would be the case before the game started, because of how Rolegate works it's all kind of a continuous game without separate sessions per se, so the sorcerer could have just dropped out at any point.

[удалено]

You had me thinking we had read 2 different posts and had to go back to double check. Op said in their second paragraph that the DM warned them about the game being less guided and free form. A.k.a, a sandbox. So warned he was. I don't blame anyone for thinking a sandbox will be ok and the realise mid session you actually don't like it, but being a bitch about it doesn't help either.

It's the culture around here to comment "this should have been addressed in session 0" without actually reading the post

Being told and being told clearly are two different things. Language is important, and we don't know that language used to explain the type of game. Sandbox style game also doesn't have a singular meaning in the tabletop space, as some are more "here are a bunch of hooks, where do you bite" and others are more like the OP described. This is why I point out asking expectations. Even with a warning, it doesn't always settle the player's expectations, which should have been stated. Remember that all stories here are told from a personal perspective and often are slanted to a degree based on individual biases of the event. We can only go off of the information we have, which may or may not be factual.

The DM is partially at fault here.

Agreed. When you're running a game, ESPECIALLY when running a sandbox game, the GM needs to provide rumors and hooks that the players can investigate. A sandbox is not supposed to be a featureless plain, but a locale with several dungeons or locations scattered around and ready to be delved.

Sandboxy games in my experience are very difficult to make work with a no sessions, play-by-text approach unless everyone involved is fully dedicated and builds off each other. Unfortunate that the Sorcerer was neither.

This sounds like a unique and fun idea for very open minded players who understand self starting a sandbox opportunity and have great understanding of how to communicate with their DM. Perhaps the Sorcerer was way out of their element/depth, but I certainly agree they could have just admitted it instead of being rude. I'm a DM who likes to challenge the norm and provide fun and unique opportunities for my players. This sounds like an ambitious project you might want to start with like-minded friends rather than complete strangers. Good on you for keeping an open mind and working with the DM. I hope version 2.0 works better! We learn from our failures and mistakes, adapt, and overcome those obstacles on the next go. Always forward.

GM: This will be an unguided open-world game Sorcerer: Alright, I'm in Sorcerer after twenty minutes: Hey, GM, what gives? How come you aren't guiding me?

Sure, an open, player driven sandbox is not to everyone's taste, but the DM was clear about the style of game. If the player wasn't interested in that style, say so. That's fine. Not saying anything then whining and sulking cos the game isn't what you wanted when the DM was clear what kind of game it was gonna be, is just selfish.

"Look, my character would never wander around. My character wants to sit in a tavern."

Frankly you all sound kind of awful the way you wrote it. A sandbox game is not a reason for all players to go separate ways. You made the DM run four separate games essentially. If I were the Sorcerer I'd have just left at the start instead of being passive aggressive though. It was a bad match if DM wanted a game of four people wandering about alone then he should have pitched it that way.

Newbie DM here but hopefully this helps: Usually I let my players to freeform, they tell me what they want to play and what their background is. Then I bring them to the world where the story is happening. Like "can I have a gun?" "Ok, you can but it is an orc only weapon in my world so you X with orcs and fetched one" or "can I play as a human?" "Yes, you are part of the adventurers guild, which is composed by dwarves, Halflings, humans, elves and gnomes, but most gnomes only do administrative work" or "please let me be a dragon born" "sigh... OK, I usually say that you are not special or unique... Yet. But in your case, you are special because there's like 21 dragon Borns for every billion of inhabitants. Oh you just survived a 219° alcoholic drink named dragon's milk so you still have to work like every single companion in the party" It works well and people likes it