I'm an inexperienced DM and I was wondering if it is possible for players to do whatever they want within the game world. Among the activities in question are running shops, trying to kill teammates, trying to kill friendly NPCs, trying to get jobs outside of adventuring, trying to marry, trying to found towns, etc. Are these things possible in D&D? If so, how do I go about it as a DM?
Sure, none of those things are impossible. However, you can set guidelines in advance about what you will allow in your campaign. For example, you might decide that all the PCs' alignment must be non-evil (or evil alignments by approval only). You might decide that PCs who aren't interested in adventuring are disallowed. You might dictate more specific backstory items if necessary (though that is usually a bit too heavy-handed for most people's tastes). More broadly, I'd encourage you to have a conversation with your players about what their goals are. Make sure adventure hooks are telegraphed. If necessary, you can always start a new campaign with an encounter (you guys are all together in the forest when your are attacked by goblins!), after which you make them explain why they were travelling together, or whatever.
This isn't really a rules question, since the rules allow PCs to do any of those things you mentioned -- but you are the Dungeon Master. It is your game.
Yup...a lot of that is really up to the DM. If you give them enough to play with, and you set up the world to live around them, they can do anything they want.
When I homebrew, I like to encourage my players to have plans for down time, and I grant them down time between adventures. I also try to incorporate their backgrounds into the game world by letting them know what's happening to relatives or their home town, or other background hooks.
When they explore or try to get information, I also throw out way more than they can possible manage to track down all at once. Then I let them decide what they will do.
I may have 3 different adventure sites or adventure outlines that they can decide to pursue to encourage them to make decisions and play more sandboxy. (Also, I rarely decide how the tales will end so I let them act and I just react).
I've been DMing for a long time so I can juggle a lot, especially because most of my games are online rather than at an actual table.
You can let them do all those things. However, based on your first line, "I'm an inexperienced DM," I would make your first few sessions fairly linear, stock adventuring. Have the party stick together through a little trial and tribulation. You'll all benefit from the experience, and it will hopefully motivate the party to cooperate and collaborate in future sessions, rather than run off in four different directions -- which was my biggest fear when I transitioned from player to DM.
Nevvur wrote:
It can be boring if all players are doing different things the whole time. Why do i care about what the guy that isn't with the group is doing when I am with the group and vice versa.
One other thing to think about is to try perhaps to funnel these sorts of non-party activities to in between sessions. If we don't end on a cliffhanger, but instead the PCs are taking a long rest or, even better, a multi-day rest at the end of the session, I tell all my players to let me know before next week what kind of stuff their character is getting into, especially if it will require any adjudication on my part. 99% of it gets handled by email. Stuff that is relevant to the group at large gets dealt with at the beginning of the next session, usually very quickly.
One other thing -- it may be that your players are just testing the limits of what they can do. Once they realize they really do have the freedom to do whatever they want, they may be less eager to scratch that itch, especially if doing something else is well-incentivized.
Gnollbane wrote:
Gnollbane wrote:
As others have mentioned you can sandbox things as much or as little as you are comfortable with, just keep in mind that you're a group of people together at a table with a single proccessor world server (you as the DM) so activities at the table should be limited to group activities (dungeon runs rather than solo questing lines) with solo activities only used when it furthers the group objectives, or just as being described as being done "behind the scenes" between group activities.
Founding a town - can't be done while exploring an ancient ruin, but hey after that's done and in between sessions when the next adventure starts they could spend their "down time" doing the founding, but they may not be well liked if they up and leave their town to go on another adventure.
Getting married - unless they need to rescue their future spouse probably best done between sessions and only referenced during play sessions.
Running a shop - a possible down time activity between adventures that helps earn the character some living expense cash and a use for any artisan tools they're proficient in.
Killling friendly NPCs - sure, but that can cause trouble for the player, and the party. Everything from just making it harder to complete their quest (said NPC had critical information they can't get another way) to getting the player and possibly the entire party hunted, jailed, or executed (said NPC was the king of a country, or part of a powerful and vengeful guild).
Killing teammates - without a VERY good storyline this should be discouraged and avoided as much as possible. Unlike an MMO where the other player's character will just respawn death in D&D is very likely a permanent thing without costly ressurection spells. It can also create hurt feelings and discord at the table, costing the table one or more players. Even with a reason in the storyline this can still cause a loss of players. I can't say to disallow it entirely as I've done it in the past (as a player, with DM approval) but it cost us a player, but we expected that and it was either get rid of him or end gaming because of the level of disruption he was causing to the game (being a kill, pillage, burn everything type of player).
The important rule to remember here is that you are a group of people on limited time doing things together. Solo activities eat up that time with nothing for the other people to do while they wait for it to be resolved. The goal is for everyone to have fun so things that leave most of the group with nothing to do take away from that. Anything that causes tension between players (because of the actions between their characters) can be disruptive to the group as a whole so should be dealt with carefully. Personality conflicts arise and have to be dealt with, but character actions can create new problems (killing other PC's or stealing from them are common troublemakers). Try to focus on group activities during play sessions but allow time to pass between play sessions for solo activities that can be referenced or discussed at the start or end of play sessions.
You could if ambitious maybe even have one on one sessions with a specific player to flesh out some of the solo activities in between the group play sessions.
The group I play with is new to the game, and I'm a new DM, so our first session was a very loose experience. Just trying to let them warm up to the game and whatnot. However, I tried to make it clear that all activities should be within the adventure (and reason), for my own sake if nothing else. Is this the correct way to go about it?
To be clear, there are two different discussions going on in this thread ... the idea of a sandbox campaign style vs. the idea of solo experiences. While there is some overlap, these are two different issues.
At the start of every campaign I run, I ask the group of players "what is it that ties your characters together?" Sometimes, it's a common villian, Sometimes, they all worship the same god. Sometimes, they have the same benefactor. One game was all dwarves of the same clan. One game everyone was part of a "traveling show" complete with animal acts, magic, and security. Establishing that "common thread" makes it much easier for you to address sandbox issues, as something that affects one character can easily draw in the rest of the group.
Sometimes, players want to do individual stuff with their characters, apart from the group. Others in the thread have offered good advice ... while this is possible and permissable, there's a fine line between that and playing a group cooperative game. For the players who are really into this, I deal with their "downtime actions" via email or message board in between sessions. So, the tacit rule is, "During our time together, we're doing group activities. When we're not together, feel free to email me the stuff your character wants to do on his/her own."
Good luck!
Gnollbane wrote:
Gnollbane wrote:
As a player there are some solo things that are easiest via just emailing the DM, but there are some solo things that I'd really rather role-play through fully. As DM, I'm exactly of the same mind.
Here's what I'd do with regards to solo activities that need actual game sessions. When I know they are going to come up, I'd tell the group that "Next week we're going to be focusing on some solo activity from _____'s character. Everyone is welcome, but you can take this week off if you'd prefer."
Ideally you'd make it be more like running the solo activities of 2 or 3 players on that week. That way you'd only need occasional sessions. Other methods involve seeing if the player wants to show up early or stay late. If solo activities is a thing that comes up a lot, you may even just designate the last hour of your sessions for solo stuff, and everyone knows they are free to leave if they aren't interested in that. Don't just assume that other players have no interesting in being "observers." Some of them don't mind just observing, and others would be interesting in playing NPC "extras" as supporting cast during solo activities. It's probably good to try a variety of methods and see which ones work best for your group.
Another tip ... "sandbox" does not mean "make things up on the fly."
You can end every session with ... "Discuss what you want to do next, so I know what to prepare for next session."
They can still do whatever they want in the sandbox world, but that doesn't equate to you having everything prepared at the drop of a hat. 
If the "So, what are you going to do next?" questions comes at the end of a session instead of at the beginning, it's much easier for you to respond to your players' intentions, rather than starting the session only to learn that they want to do something other than what you are prepared for.
Good luck!
You can. Like I'm starting a campaign that will be primarily played online and with a multitude of people. I'm starting everyone off separately and running them through solo stuff until they "come together" so to speak. If they choose never to come together, well then they can do as they wish. Though I will be setting up hooks to try and bring them together for an overall story arc.
All great advice above. Get them on a storyline, keep them to it. You can even say "that's the mission". You're the one putting in all the prep and design and study, etc. HOWEVER, once in awhile (every third game) you should work in some sandbox style play. Get better as a DM and you can do this per session, about one-third sandbox. Towns and cities are especially good for this. Have a few cool NPC's and goals and rewards in mind. Let them go where they want. You riff on the encounters. Most of the very best session in my last 36 years DMing are from this type of play. It is your turn to ROLE play, not roll play. Do a good job and you can create a long-running nemesis that will last for decades. Or a surprising ally that pops up later. Or a hilarious encounter that startles you as much as them. Or a wickedly cool magical item that has some serious downsides.
But to do this continuously will wear you out quick. It will totally obscure the game path. And will leave everyone muddled.
And, no. PC killing PC's is a BAD idea. Unless you have specific goals in mind. Players cannot forgive or forget the offense with their next (totally unrelated) PC.