So, I've been running a sandbox game for some 2 years now. It's been hit and miss, but I'd like to talk about the last session as an example.
Basically, the party were investigating this crazy monk that was giving people psychic powers to create a band of ruffians at his command, and they used divination magic to ask about his location. By the cryptic answer they got, they thought he was on the mountains, which he wasn't. I had planned some quests over there, so when they arrived, they found a somewhat realized place, but they didn't care one bit, they were just after the guy.
They didn't find him, obviously, but because the way they phrased their answers ("we are searching for a buff guy"), they ended up catching the wiff of an entirely different person.
Now, my problem is that I do not wish to force the fact that the guy was searching for was actually the guy they found. This wouldn't make much sense and would ultimately set a type of play where everything works out independently of their decisions, which isn't what I would want from a sandbox game. On the other hand, a session where my players just search aimelessly and find nothing is boring for them, even though it does make sense in-world. For me, it was painful, because they didn't pick on obvious clues (they found the hideout of a group that knew the guy's location but decided not to enter because the magic cryptic information is obviously more reliable).
What do I do in these kind of circumstances? This is the first sandbox campaign I run, and I'm tired of this shit. In a videogame, if you keep taking obviously wrong choices, it stops giving you useful feedback, but in a game like this, the fact they find more to do seems enough to keep them thinking they're on the right track. Maybe it's just not worth to give a million choices if it's ultimately just going to confuse.

Try to drop more obvious hints for them

>>95880100 (OP)
The easy way when they are after thing A and stumble, and ignore, thing B is having a NPC comment on what's happening in place where thing B is happening.
The NPC could be at the place of thing B, or in the place they are moving from (town, village, whatever) so that they are aware thing B is a thing.
At least that's what our DM does most of the time.
That and stopping us in our tracks and specifically telling us we notice that something something some other seems to have taken place, which causes us to make a note and come back later.
The "issue" with sandbox is that the players often will focus on one thing, and other things they find along the way might remain unexplored because they keep finding other things to do.
That's the case for us right now, we have an ever growing laundry list of things we ought to do, want to do, or could do, both at a local, global, and multiversal level.

>tl;dr
Give them more explicit directions, such as a guy they met on the way or at the place that comments on the circumstances.
Or embrace it and let the pieces fall where they fall.
Also,
>Now, my problem is that I do not wish to force the fact that the guy was searching for was actually the guy they found. This wouldn't make much sense and would ultimately set a type of play where everything works out independently of their decisions, which isn't what I would want from a sandbox game
Sometimes this might be necessary, I think, to keep things at all interesting and not boring.

>>95880120
I don't feel comfortable doing that when the spell itself mentions the answer must be cryptic. This means the players knew what kind of answer they were getting when casting it and that it was balanced to work like that by the devs given the spell level and resources spent. If I gave them a staright answer, that would disrespect both expectations, and worse of all, I'd be setting a precedent to give them an easy out out of every unknown element.
Make no mistake, the conclusion they arrived to was a long shot. It wasn't misleading or a troll on my part. They went with very ambigous information because they chose to.

>>95880186
This is what I usally do when dealing with more rail roady adventures. I give them a sometimes not so subtle nudge that they're going off course.
Thing is, isn't the point of a sandbox campaign that the players may approach problems in whichever way they wish? It seems to me that if I course correct, I'd just be setting them on a series of quest lines rather than an organic campaign that feels like a lived world.

>>95880100 (OP)
This is the secret of sandbox campaigns, you don't have to continue the plot in question immediately, and the game doesn't really have a fail state other than 'party's dead, world's destroyed'. As far as making the session entertaining, just throw random enemies at them that entice them into a new scenario. Being married to one idea is not the sandbox way.

That said, you can still keep the original idea on the backburner, progressing it in the background as your players faff about in this originally irrelevant location. Or give up on the sandbox and lead them back to the plot by the nose.

>>95880100 (OP)
>they didn't pick on obvious clues
Sounds like the problem is that you think there's any such thing as an obvious clue.

>>95880322
That's good advice. In this situation, tho, it's a little harder, since they're ignoring the other stuff in order to follow what they think is their target.
Maybe a combat encounter out of the blue is the best option. It will make them angry at the attackers and want to get involved.

>>95881172
Well, you tell me.
>the monk guy was explicitly said to be part of a cult
>one of the pcs knows a guy from that cult
>they sent a spy to gather information on that very same cult many sessions back
>spy found the monk guy, and I made a point to say he did so by investigating the cult
>spy got his leg irreparably destroyed by the monk, and managed to get away by throwing himself into the sea. Since then, the monk got another hideout
>they know where the cult is located, they're open to the public and the players have a contact ove there
The obvious choice in my mind is investigating the cult.

>>95880100 (OP)
Congratulations, you wasted everyone's time. The players are unsatisfied because they didn't do the thing they wanted, you're not satisfied because they didn't pick up on stuff. Have you considered rethinking the sandbox approach and if you know the players are looking for the guy and that they're using divination to do it, then perhaps you should give them the correct answer if the roll was correct.

>>95880100 (OP)
sandbox means you have to improvise almost everything

if you don't like that then don't run a sandbox

>>95883475
Not how the spell works, retard.

>>95883495
While I don't know which system you're using, most divination spells in most systems have a percent roll associated with them.

>>95883475
If I just get them what they want regardless of how wrong they go about it, then it's not really sandbox, is it? It's just a railroaded campaign with extra steps.

>>95883491
Nowhere I said my problem was with improvising, could you explain your thought process?

>>95883529
if your game has stalled then you have to improvise a solution to that on the spot

>>95883519
NTA. I'm using 5e. Yeah, yeah, I know, my players don't wanna try anything else for medieval fantasy.
The spell they used is called Divination. It requires no roll and it implies I'm supposed to be cryptic. I could just give them a straight answer, but I feel that would set a bad precedent. They'd get a free answer from the GM from a 4th level spell.

>>95883552
In that case, that's just a railroaded game, isn't it?

>>95883445
>The obvious choice in my mind
This is why we normally teach kids that what's in their mind isn't necessarily the same as what's in someone else's mind. You're focussed on those things because you already know the fucking answer. They are focussed on the supernatural power they used specifically to solve the problem. Which you've given no details about beyond it being misleading.

>>95883579
only if that's what you choose to improvise towards

there are no limits pal, and you're not the first to fail to grasp the true enormity behind that concept

you need to come to terms with the idea that people have chosen to play these games over video games for the reactivity and nothing else

imagine more than just what you or even your players want to happen, you have to be quick on your feet and force yourself to say things first and worry about their implications later

you're a shark kid, keep things moving even if they're moving towards a place nobody wants to be, or you all die

>>95883660
Again, they went on a guess. Ask yourself this: if your players interpreted an omen or a cryptic passage in an incorrect manner and chose to follow it while knowing they're unsure, would you change your plans to accomodate their incorrect assumption? If you let every risky undertaking lead them to the same place, that's just telling a story rather than respecting their choices, is it not?

>>95883663
>if your game has stalled then you have to improvise a solution to that on the spot
>imagine more than just what you or even your players want to happen
That's good advice. That is what I seek to achieve. What to do when the players are laser focused on an objective, though? I feel like they ignored everything going on the mountains in order to find a person who's not even supposed to be there. How would you reccomend I reel them into the goings on of a different objective?

>>95880189
Do your players understand that the information is supposed to be specifically cryptic? It seems like they have misunderstood the function of the spell.

Are they alright with playing the style of game that you are running? Are they going to be pissed off that they went in an entirely wrong direction? Is their an appreciable difference in this system between player knowledge and character knowledge? Can you go "as a wizard, you understand that prognostication of this variety is usually very vague and can be misleading, and you should probably find out more information to back up your scrying?" 9 times out of 10 situations like this occur because the players have forgotten some bit of information that the characters would remember, is there a way for you to reinforce/reintegrate/reframe the totality of information that have gathered up until now?

>>95883529
That's not what railroading is. I agree that other anon's suggestion might violate the spirit of your campaign and your social contract, but the binary isn't sandbox/railroad, railroad is fail state of bad prep.

>>95883529
That's not railroading.

>>95883579
this reads like a bait thread
you should figure out what sandbox means before you try to achieve a goal you don't even understand
run more traditional campaigns because it sounds like you're lacking the basic GM skill to guide your players
the problem you have is entirely self-inflicted
>"we are searching for a buff guy"
>npc responds with distinct answer to vague description
>gm punishes them for giving vague description
it would be trivial to have the npc ask more questions and not make a weird, out of place assumption

>>95880100 (OP)
They didn't find nothing. They found the wrong guy. Now they continue adventuring to find the right guy. What's the problem?

>>95885164
No, it's exactly what a railroad is.
If every decision leads to finding the monk, then it's the same as making no decisions. There's no reason for the players to show up.

A railroad where you get everything you want is just as bad as one where the DM shits on you constantly.

>>95885719
what are you asking for help with then. if you dont want to 'railroad' your players by guiding them, you're doing exactly what want

>>95880100 (OP)
Just have it so the guy they found has ties to the guy they're looking for. It will make it seem like they're moving in the right direction and your players won't end up floundering along in the wrong direction because you're being intentionally vague.

In my experience you don't want to be too coy with players, because if you make everything a cryptic vague as fuck answer they will never ever figure out what you expect them to figure out.

>>95885719
I'm not the OP, retard.

>>95885719
You realize that there is a middle ground between "poker-facedly tell my players nothing of value and let them spin their wheels" and "Quantum Orges, Quantum Orges all the way down!" right?

No, there certainly isn't. Only cowards and charlatans believe in middling ideas.

I can think of 4 ways to get out of the predicament.
1. They find the guy and he has ties that lead back to the cult.
2. The cult starts doing culty things that force the players to intervene and investigate.
3. They find the wrong guy the wrong guy has just enough gold on him to make them feel as if they didn't waste their time.
4. They find the guy, however in the process they ally with someone who has information they need/can help point them in the right direction after hearing their story.

>>95885151
>Do your players understand that the information is supposed to be specifically cryptic?
Yeah, it's in the spell description, and one of them mentioned how he expected not to understand the answer.
>Are they alright with playing the style of game that you are running?
When we got together to decide what the next adventure is going to be, I gave them some options that varied on playstyle. They seemed interested in this approach and said they wanted to play sandbox. Right now, I'm not sure. They claim they're having fun, and said they wanted to keep going when I had a dismotivation crisis a while back, but they also said they wanted the next one to be more streamlined. I can't tell if it's because we've playing for long or if it's because the playstyle itself is at fault.

>in-game vs. out-of-game info
I remind them of things from months back all the time. I don't recall if I mentioned the contact on my recap or not, but I must have.

>>95885164
>>95885175
Care to explain what you think railroading means in your view?

>>95885181
>this reads like a bait thread
You are bad at discerning sincerity
>it would be trivial to have the npc ask more questions and not make a weird, out of place assumption
He did. The players already suspect it's not the guy they're after since he's alone. They chose to follow the lead regardless because, in their words "it's the best we can do right now"

>>95885703
The problem, I'd say, is that they seem unwilling to do other stuff rather than the objective at hand. It lead to a boring session where not much happened. As some people pointed out, I may just need a stronger hook to get them involved.

>>95885719
I agree with you. I'm wondering if that's the kind of game they want to play, though. They didn't seem interested in much else other than the monk.

>>95885719
Because of their already stablished history, I think that'd be a hard thing to do. I may find a way to bs this.

>>95885993
The issue, I think, is the "nothing of value" part. I tried to give them some hooks and fun interactions, but they only care about the objective at hand. I feel like the best sandbox campaigns I've played in are the ones where you always find something of interest rather than the ones with 101 ways to redirect you to the main plot.
Maybe I should let them make something akin to CoC's idea roll so they get where they want to be. You guys think that'd be a good fit for sandbox campaigns?

>>95887046
I didn't say they shouldn't do the objective at hand.
Plenty of stuff happened. Making progress towards an objective doesn't mean you achieve it immediately, and it doesn't mean you don't fail or make any mistakes along the way. Sounds like your players suffer from poor mindset.

>>95881172
This. OPs problem is the classic example of a GM who can't see things from the player's perspective. This is a lethal trait to have when trying to run a mystery or having some sort of intrigue component like he is doing.

OP, the fact is your players just aren't invested like you are. They aren't seeing the "obvious" things because they're simply not looking very hard. When having mystery components like this, its is absolutely essential that you have no fewer than three separate types of clues available for every single revelation. Yes, it will look like overkill behind the GM screen. But is necessary. They need to be designed before your players ever come upon them. The whole point is to have redundancy so that the truth is found somehow no matter what. Otherwise you will end up in your situation where they simply cant progress, and their interest in that mystery will continue to wane.

>>95887090
I personally hate an idea roll. You have it right here though, and other people have said the same thing:
>I feel like the best sandbox campaigns I've played in are the ones where you always find something of interest

Just make sure that, even though they've decided to chase down a red Herring, the red Herring is interesting and fun, and they get *something* out of it that will help them later. Maybe they get an artifact or meet an ally or learn a bit of lore that doesn't seem important now but can be reincorporated later on.

I also agree with >>95887360, you're probably not pointing towards useful outcomes because you think that'd be railroading, but that isn't railroading my dude, and I'm sure the GM who ran the sandbox campaigns you've enjoyed playing in signposted the ever loving fuck out of things.

>>95887039
A railroad is a "straight line" of forced events from A to B to C to D and so on. The players have no option to leave the railroad, nor can they go back, as it is analogous to a train car, only moving forward.

>>95880186
>That's the case for us right now, we have an ever growing laundry list of things we ought to do, want to do, or could do, both at a local, global, and multiversal level.
this means it's good sandbox