D&D 5E What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?

that's why the continuum is constructed as a theoretical model with Sandbox at one end and Railroad at the other

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

Both these claims are contentious.

Click to expand...

Well, I won't speak for SirAntoine but my continuum is based on choice, where at one end a "perfect" Sandbox gives unlimited choice and a "perfect" Railroad gives no choices to the players. Neither extreme is ever met (see my other posts for more details). All gameplay falls somewhere in between, as your own post seems to illustrate quite well.

Mark CMG said:

my continuum is based on choice

Click to expand...

But there are (at least) two different places where choices can be made. Choice of what challenge to face. Choice of how a given challenge resolves and leads to consequences.

Railroading puts the GM in charge of both. Sandboxing emphasises the players driving the first (choice of challenge). Scene-framing emphasises players driving the second (resolution and consequences).

It's not player vs. DM.

pemerton said:

But there are (at least) two different places where choices can be made. Choice of what challenge to face. Choice of how a given challenge resolves and leads to consequences.

Railroading puts the GM in charge of both. Sandboxing emphasises the players driving the first (choice of challenge). Scene-framing emphasises players driving the second (resolution and consequences).

Click to expand...

So, as I said, there are more choices toward the Sandbox end of the continuum. Scene-framing is actually an element of Storytelling games that some modern RPGs add-on, which is fine, but it it is beyond the scope of the Sandbox-Railroad continuum. RPGs, at their root, have players making choices through their characters to execute actions within a setting as controled by a GM (DM, Referee, Facilitator, etal). I suppose one could tack it on to an RPG as a re-allocation of choices from GM to player but that doesn't change the fact that RPing games using it still fall somewhere on the Sandbox-Railroad continuum as I have outlined.

Traditionally, players control what their characters try to do, GMs control everything else.

If the GM controls a character or uses the "Everything else" so powerfully that the player ceases to feel they are controlling what their characters try to do, that's railroading (if they notice and don't mine, that's participationism).

Scene-framing is one of many story-gamey situations when the players control things outside their character. (Which happens a tiny bit in every game--like if you decide your PC's race, that's controlling something the actual PC wouldn't be able to control--but not as much.)

SirAntoine said:

It's not player vs. DM.

Click to expand...

What's not?

At least roughly speaking, the more choice the players have over some aspect of the fiction, the less the GM has. And vice versa.

Mark CMG said:

So, as I said, there are more choices toward the Sandbox end of the continuum.

Click to expand...

There are also more choices towards the scene-framing end of the continuum - which is a different end from both the sandbox and the railroading ends - which is a reason to think that it's not a continuum!

Mark CMG said:

Scene-framing is actually an element of Storytelling games that some modern RPGs add-on, which is fine, but it it is beyond the scope of the Sandbox-Railroad continuum.

Click to expand...

But it's not beyond the scope of the scene-framing/railroad continuum. As a self-conscious approach to RPGing, it was articulated as an alternative to 90s-era railroading (associated with White Wolf games and also 2nd ed AD&D).

If railroading lies at the end of two different continuums, that's a reason to think that the best framework for analysing the phenomenon is not a continuum.

Mark CMG said:

RPGs, at their root, have players making choices through their characters to execute actions within a setting as controled by a GM (DM, Referee, Facilitator, etal).

Click to expand...

Zak S said:

Traditionally, players control what their characters try to do, GMs control everything else.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's traditional that the GM controls everything else - for instance, I don't think there is any tradition that the GM in 1st ed AD&D is free to ignore the result of a player's attack roll, or the players' initiative roll, just because s/he doesn't like it.

The idea that the GM can override any aspect of the player-side action resolution mechanics has its origin sometime in the 80s (Dragonlance is often cited), and flourishes in the 90s.

Zak S said:

Scene-framing is one of many story-gamey situations when the players control things outside their character.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sort of approach to RPGing supported by RPGs like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling and other similar games (I would put 4e among them) where scene-framing authority is in the hands of the GM.

My point is that such games were invented because the inventors (i) wanted the sort of RPG-generates-story experience that mainstream 90s games promised, and (ii) didn't want the railroading that mainstream 90s games were using to realise that promise.

This is an approach to avoiding railroading that does not involve sandboxing. It's a real thing, that some real RPGers actually do.

I don't see a contest.

pemerton said:

*snip*

Click to expand...

Sorry, buddy, but every thread about RPGs you introduce Storytelling game elements as if they aren't an add-on to how traditional RPGs function and it simply isn't the case. This time, it is causing you to move the goalposts on how a Sandbox and a Railroad differ in regard to player choice in RPGs. You're missing the point and, since this is a conversation you bring up repeatedly, it seems you are just going to have to agree to disagree with how traditional RPGs function. It's like jumping into a conversation about water and the continuum between ice and steam only to insist that people need to discuss how rocks factor into that continuum because you feel rocks are a traditional part of water.

Mark CMG said:

Sorry, buddy, but every thread about RPGs you introduce Storytelling game elements

Click to expand...

I've got my copy of Burning Wheel here. It says "Fantasy Roleplaying System" on the spine. My copy of 4e says "Roleplaying Game" on the cover, too.

These games were invented by roleplayers for roleplayers. They are roleplaying games. They may not be your favourites, but hey - I don't like by-the-book 2nd ed AD&D, and I think it's advice and overall tone that the players should subordinate themselves to the GM at every point produces terrible gaming (and has absolutely nothing in common with the sort of game that Gygax published), but I don't go around posting that it is not an RPG.

And it's not as if the techniques that games like BW use came from nowhere. I worked out various techniques for myself, which designers like Luke Crane and Robin Laws have taken to places I wouldn't have been able to on my own, playing Oriental Adventures in the mid-80s (it being the first version of D&D to make PC background a core aspect of PC building, and hence a key anchor for GM choices about how to frame conflicts and player choices about how to engage them).

This thread was started by [MENTION=9327]Halivar[/MENTION] wanting to talk about how to avoid AP-style railroading. What would prep look like, what would relevant GMing techniques be, etc. I don't see why you object to me pointing out a well-known, widely-used approach to preparing and running RPGs that might be relevant - especially because they also tend to avoid the "player paralysis" issue that Halivar is concerned about.