This is probably more of a general gaming topic, but it happened to me most recently in this game so I thought I would get your thoughts. I am primarily a sandbox GM. I don't like to railroad or force actions. I generally improvise but along the lines of a general main hook while also trying to spin at least two other side hooks.

Recently for a whole short campaign, that I ended early, the players consistently tried to avoid danger of any kind.

At first I thought it was charming when they thought through every move and tried to come up with smart plans for operating, but then I began to realize that they were avoiding nearly every hook. This was actually an Age of Rebellion game but that forum lacks a GM tab. Anyway they actually failed missions for the Rebellion because they would not engage, and kept getting like half the job done. They were boring the **** out of me with this as I watched them fail to do anything interesting even when I let them completely lead the action and story.

I stopped the game at least twice to have a talk with them about this, and I constantly harped on it out of session, but they seemed unable to actually engage in adventure.

"I'm not against you guys ok, I'm not trying to kill you if you don't outsmart me. This is about creating a story with random elements, not about pure survival."

As they were not my normal group I probed a bit and found out that they had been terrorized by a killer GM. We talked about that, and I explained that I am not him, and that they really should try to actually allow some tension to enter the game by just going for the objective. I told them I didn't expect them to be foolhardy or berserkers, but they were acting like insurance adjusters or helicopter moms for their characters.

I have had this problem to a lesser scale in the past, but I have never before encountered players who seemed to be unable to drop this defensive stance. My first three sessions I sensed this and really tried to reassure them by not threatening them much at all. I did kick out one of their normal groupmates because he seemed to be leading the risk averse behavior, and actually displayed anger toward me when something in one of their plans went wrong. To me that is aplayer trying to coerce me to not have danger and risk, so among his other party fouls that was the last straw, and he got /ignored and sent home.

So given this vignette, what sort of feedback can you guys give me about this situation? Have you had this problem, and if so how did you get a normal game where the characters act like adventure heroes, not meek personalities who try to go from one safe activity to the next?

The first suggestion I have is to abandon the idea of a "true" sandbox. Go with adventures that have defined objectives while allowing your players the freedom to approach those objectives on their own terms. This is easier to do in a game where the PCs are directed by outside elements (Alliance, Bounty Hunters' Guild, etc.) than in the typical EotE game where the PCs are "free agents" flying through space on their own with only a credit balance sheet to answer to. It also helps if you reinforce that Star Wars is always supposed to be a high heroism setting--this isn't Traveller.

Yah I agree, some rails are good things. It's like a good movie, show them don't tell them, in regards trying to get them to realize you aren't an adversarial GM. Put them in the 'box canyon' scenario and the only way out is to fight their way out, and then you will show them you aren't genocidal.

Holy crap. I've never heard of an entire group getting so traumatized by a GM. It might be worth switching over to EotE for this, since the general aim of that particular setting is much less combat-centric. They might need some time to get used to combat they can look forward to.

yeah, lock them onto the rails for a while. Make it really simple too. Raid this building right now with this equipment. You have 5 minutes till the hostage is dead/ the Mcguffin is destroyed/ reinforcements show up and everyone dies. If they avoid the conflict, they fail and their boss tells them he doesnt need cowards and they are reassigned to Food Services.

Ugh. I hate to admit it but I believe you guys are right. I am going to have to script things more. I would give them a definite hook but if it sounded dangerous they would start finding ways to try and avoid it, but if I do the canyon trap they will have no choice and maybe then they will see that it's not the end of the world. At one point though I had to say, "Have you guys even seen Star Wars?" lol

15 minutes ago, Degenerate Mind said:

Holy crap. I've never heard of an entire group getting so traumatized by a GM. It might be worth switching over to EotE for this, since the general aim of that particular setting is much less combat-centric. They might need some time to get used to combat they can look forward to.

Yeah they are all afraid I am trying to kill them all the time. That or they just really enjoy removing obstacles and actually feel good about just kicking back and not actually doing anything.

4 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah they are all afraid I am trying to kill them all the time. That or they just really enjoy removing obstacles and actually feel good about just kicking back and not actually doing anything.

Oh man, you should totally start trying to actually kill them - blatantly and ineffectively.

"Everyone, make a simple perception check. You all succeed? Well then, everyone notices a tarp that was hastily draped over a hole in the ground in front of you. Animalistic growls can be heard coming from underneath. Yes, as a matter of fact, you can easily walk around it."

1 minute ago, Degenerate Mind said:

Oh man, you should totally start trying to actually kill them - blatantly and ineffectively.

"Everyone, make a simple perception check. You all succeed? Well then, everyone notices a tarp that was hastily draped over the ground in front of you. Animalistic growls can be heard coming from underneath. Yes, as a matter of fact, you can easily walk around it."

lol! Yeah man I logged some long hours in that campaign while they shined their unused weapons. There was a lot of role-playing to fill in the void, but after a while even that got old as there was no tension to drive things. A couple of times I had the bad guys come to them but they treated it like Armageddon.

Just now, Archlyte said:

lol! Yeah man I logged some long hours in that campaign while they shined their unused weapons. There was a lot of role-playing to fill in the void, but after a while even that got old as there was no tension to drive things. A couple of times I had the bad guys come to them but they treated it like Armageddon.

I don't know what to tell you. I have no idea how I would handle this problem in a game.

6 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

lol! Yeah man I logged some long hours in that campaign while they shined their unused weapons. There was a lot of role-playing to fill in the void, but after a while even that got old as there was no tension to drive things. A couple of times I had the bad guys come to them but they treated it like Armageddon.

Wait, no, I actually do have an idea. You said you kicked a player from the game, right? Do you have any buddies with the spare time to join the game for the purpose of egging the players on to actually fight? They might take the hint better from a fellow player than the GM.

You've definitely got at least one space in the party for an instigator.

8 minutes ago, Degenerate Mind said:

Wait, no, I actually do have an idea. You said you kicked a player from the game, right? Do you have any buddies with the spare time to join the game for the purpose of egging the players on to actually fight? They might take the hint better from a fellow player than the GM.

You've definitely got at least one space in the party for an instigator.

This is an excellent idea!

Just now, Archlyte said:

This is an excellent idea!

Glad I could help!

1 hour ago, Degenerate Mind said:

Holy crap. I've never heard of an entire group getting so traumatized by a GM. It might be worth switching over to EotE for this, since the general aim of that particular setting is much less combat-centric. They might need some time to get used to combat they can look forward to.

Non-combat-centric games often backfire in this regard by making the players even more risk-adverse. Perhaps surprisingly, games where combat is embraced as an aspect (but not as the only aspect) of the game are more likely to get players to be more accepting of risks.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

Non-combat-centric games often backfire in this regard by making the players even less risk-adverse. Perhaps surprisingly, games where combat is embraced as an aspect (but not as the only aspect) of the game are more likely to get players to be more accepting of risks.

I suppose that makes more sense than keeping them sheltered fixing the problem.

1 minute ago, Degenerate Mind said:

I suppose that makes more sense than keeping them sheltered fixing the problem.

Oops! Check my edited post for my intended message.

In one of the games I played (currently in purgatory), the rest of the group was all about the non-combat solutions. They would take long spans of time discussing optimal strategy and potential pitfalls. It's a good thing they had me. I tend to play characters that leap without looking. Good or bad, I get things done and make things happen. And when the smoke clears those that are still alive usually have a cool story to tell.

Ok, for my Age game, which I'm GM'ing, I thought long and hard before abandoning my usual approach to games, where I would let the players entirely take the lead.

So I started with a Star Wars crawl that had them about to intercept an imperial force that was about to capture their rebel contact. On game start we stepped back slightly in time to their preparations, but by throwing them straight into the situation they had little choice. I was really worried about taking away their choice, but it actually really worked.

As the campaign has progressed I've done some that way, some with more choice from them.

Maybe that approach would work? Star Wars movies always start with an action scene!

7 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Yah I agree, some rails are good things. It's like a good movie, show them don't tell them, in regards trying to get them to realize you aren't an adversarial GM. Put them in the 'box canyon' scenario and the only way out is to fight their way out, and then you will show them you aren't genocidal.

Kind of disagree on the rails part, while I am absolutely agreeing with "show them, don't tell them". From personal experience I would say it is more effective to make the players attached to something, NPCs, treasure, whatever and then let them fight for it. I have yet to meet players, even completely new ones, who will not try to protect something when they are attached to it … well at least after they have experienced that they can lose things. So I would recommend to make it all about showing them consequences for inaction, consequences for not taking chances, for not taking risks.

Might sound counter-intuitive to "punish" risk averse players for not taking risks, but it gets the point across that not making a stand can sometimes be the greater risk which is a good way to guide players into the action. Once they realize in the action that all is gonna be "fine", they should put more faith into their characters and their GM.

edit:
And obligations, duty, morality are all perfect tools to build those attachments and adding consequences for ignoring them. So the game does include such plot hooks even in a free sandbox game. Stuff still happens in a sandbox play style after all, it just the players decisions if and how they want to influence the sandbox. The biggest draw back of a sandbox playstyle is that you can easily end up with significant consequences for the game universe which becomes afterwards an exercise in world building and not just leading the game.

A lot of gamers started their careers in games where defeat ended in indignity, humiliation, dismemberment, torture, death, etc. If players are attached to their characters, situations in which those kinds of ends are likely they will either go full-on ambushing murder-hobo or actively seek to avoid those situations. There are a few ways to mitigate this tendency. The first is building trust. I'm not saying you don't deserve trust or that your players don't, on a theoretical level, trust you, but sometimes you have to prove it at the table . If they are shown failure, even in "dangerous situations" (even combat!) can be survived, or even leads to some cool side-scenes or adventures, they will take more risks. The second way to deal with this is to reduce the number of combat / physically dangerous challenges the players' face in favor of other kinds of challenges. The assorted books have a lot advice on running all kinds of scenarios, making them interesting, building tension, and applying the narrative dice system to them. Social, slicing, negotiation, research, investigating, heisting...! The third is to invest the players' characters in the goal either through their own interests developing in the sandbox or using the assorted duty, morality, and obligation systems.

If they persist in non-engagement, maybe dock their XP payout. They aren't role-playing; they're metagaming. (unless of course you signed off on them creating characters that are all total cowards, but then that's a different problem!)

Tell them that if they're not going to play the characters they created like they're part of the Star Wars galaxy, then there's little point in playing the Star Wars Roleplaying game.

Or it could be that role-playing games just aren't their thing. Maybe they would prefer to spend their game time playing a strategy game like Risk: Legacy or BattleLore, or a board games like Talisman.

37 minutes ago, Vondy said:

but sometimes you have to prove it at the table .

This is true, and I must also advise you that it can sometimes take quite a bit of time to build that trust; especially if the player has had a long history with adversarial GM's. I had one player who was at my table for 2 or 3 years before it finally sank in that I wasn't out to get him.

30 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

If they persist in non-engagement, maybe dock their XP payout. They aren't role-playing; they're metagaming. (unless of course you signed off on them creating characters that are all total cowards, but then that's a different problem!)

Tell them that if they're not going to play the characters they created like they're part of the Star Wars galaxy, then there's little point in playing the Star Wars Roleplaying game.

Or it could be that role-playing games just aren't their thing. Maybe they would prefer to spend their game time playing a strategy game like Risk: Legacy or BattleLore, or a board games like Talisman.

I wouldn't necessarily say being risk-adverse is metagaming. In fact, running headlong into dangerous situations because the setting encourages it and the rules make it fairly survivable is much more accurately the metagaming approach. That's not to say it's an undesirable level of metagaming, but the "true roleplayer" can often be correct that risk aversion is exactly "what my character would do" in many situations where the risks should be unreasonable to most sane individuals.

It is when it get to be 'the GM is trying to kill us' that it is metagaming. Where it goes beyond what would be appropriate for the characters. If the players are failing at missions because they are too risk averse to even try to shoot someone, even tho their characters are rebel alliance soldiers, then it is more meta than roleplay

1 hour ago, korjik said:

It is when it get to be 'the GM is trying to kill us' that it is metagaming. Where it goes beyond what would be appropriate for the characters. If the players are failing at missions because they are too risk averse to even try to shoot someone, even tho their characters are rebel alliance soldiers, then it is more meta than roleplay

There's a fine line in some players' perceptions between "the GM is trying to kill us" and "the Empire (or other setting appropriate adversary) is trying to kill us" especially when the latter is very likely true. Some level of caution can be fun to role play, but too much is just as much of a fun killer as players fearlessly charging against overwhelming odds at all opportunities believing that "the GM won't kill us."