It needs to be more of a sandbox than a railroad?

[Quickleaf]

Nor is it somewhere on a notional spectrum between railroad and sandbox. It is its own thing.

Agreed, indie RPG style scene framing is its own thing. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Robin Laws presents similar sorts of adventures in the HeroWars Narrator Book. And this is how I use published D&D adventures, but in means that in most cases I have to disregard the author's own presentation of the adventure.

How to design D&D adventures accommodating both tighter (railroad-ish) and looser (sandbox, scene framing, etc) frameworks is of great interest to me. Because of D&D's focus on overcoming challenges (the game), this is a bit of a tricky balance given practical limits of adventure page count.

What I've found is there is a bit of sandbox/railroad/scene framing overlap that can happen, but once I start seriously designing for one of these styles play, it becomes harder (if not impossible) to design for the other two style. Which is why I tend to think of Pure Railroad and Pure Sandbox as extremes of a spectrum; at a certain point, if I'm making a strongly sandbox-leaning adventure, the design doesn't facilitate a more linear/railroad style.

That's my observation so far, though it's certainly one I'm challenging every time I sit down to work on my current mega-adventure. Perhaps I just haven't found the magic formula yet.

 

[pemerton]

How to design D&D adventures accommodating both tighter (railroad-ish) and looser (sandbox, scene framing, etc) frameworks is of great interest to me.

<snip>

once I start seriously designing for one of these styles play, it becomes harder (if not impossible) to design for the other two style. Which is why I tend to think of Pure Railroad and Pure Sandbox as extremes of a spectrum

I certainly agree with you that they are generally mutually exclusive, in that an adventure designed to be a railroad probably isn't going to serve as a sandbox, and vice versa.

I'm only disagreeing on the (relatively narrow) spectrum issue.

As to how to solve the design issue, my own view - based on intuition more than robust investigation and evidence - is that it can't be totally solved. Certainly, when I look at some well-regarded adventures from the 2nd ed era (eg Dead Gods, various Ravenloft offerings, etc) I can't see anything but hopeless railroads that I couldn't even think of running (because most of their scenes have no real hook outside the context of the railroad, and so don't lend themselves to adaptation to my preferred style).

When I think of some non-classic D&D modules that I've used - Bastion of Broken Souls, Test of the Samurai - I didn't use all of them, but they had enough scenes that were compelling in and of themselves that large chunks could be used while ignoring the authors intended railroads. For instance, in a Japanese-themed campaign the Peachling Girl and a ninja snake cult (two episodes from Test of the Samurai) should be compelling situations regardless of the particular hooks/transitions the author had in mind.

 

[Yora]

This is why I generally consider D&D adventures to be not very good. Either you have to go down a predetermined path with predetermined outcome, or in the case of older ones, you are dropped into a place and supposed to get the treasure, simply because.

The exception is the Against the Giants series. "Giants raid the surrounding area from their fortress. Stop them."
It's entirely up to the players to decide how they get in, or even get some of the giants to come out and pick them off in small groups, and then it's up to them if they feel like killing every living being inside by either stealth or frontal assault, or if they can come up with a way to use trickery to take out the giant chief, convince some of his followers to betray him someway, or whatever the players can think of.

 

[Sadras]

This is why I generally consider D&D adventures to be not very good.

Not objecting here, but...

The exception is the Against the Giants series. "Giants raid the surrounding area from their fortress. Stop them." It's entirely up to the players to decide how they get in, or even get some of the giants to come out and pick them off in small groups, and then it's up to them if they feel like killing every living being inside by either stealth or frontal assault, or if they can come up with a way to use trickery to take out the giant chief, convince some of his followers to betray him someway, or whatever the players can think of.

...how is that different to Homlett & Temple of Elemental Evil?

It is entirely the players decision who to assist in Homlett and how to get into the Moathouse/Temple of Evil (my players entered through the roof)? whether to investigate for a week, the comings and goings of the Moathouse's/Temple's occupants? bribe the mercenaries/humanoids within to fight for them? pick them off in small groups? deciding to kill every living being inside by either stealth (undercover or otherwise) or frontal assault? or if they can come up with a way to use trickery to take out the head clerics by making side deals with the under-priests by convincing them to betray them some way or whatever the players can think of?

 

[Yora]

Perhaps. I never read that one.

 

[Emerikol]

I believe for an extensive drawn out campaign that runs for a long time the sandbox approach is best for me. I don't mind the players railroading themselves but I as DM do not want to railroad them.

Keep on the Borderland is a sandbox so adventures can be written that are sandboxes.

Any linear adventure can be dropped into a sandbox setting and if the players choose to follow along the linear path it's still a sandbox setting. To me the key to sandbox is that players are never forced or even strongly encouraged to choose path A. The DM creates enough adventure in the sandbox area that people can choose to follow any railroad they want or just wander around.

I would never enjoy playing in a game where the DM was just making it up as we go. Unless he had a godlike intellect and memory so he could fool me. No one has ever fooled me even one session yet.

here is how I go about creating a sandbox...
1. I craft a region of my world and I figure out the place this region has to the big picture.
2. I develop the locales and the basic npcs of the area.
3. Then I figure out the major players of the region. You could think of them as mini-icons from 13th Age. Icons for just the region.
4. I develop the plans and plots for these individuals. Both good and evil. If adventure locations need detailing I detail them.
5. I also craft the ancient history of the region. What was here before? I then place additional adventures based on that knowledge.
6. I figure out the relationship of the PCs to the region. Often it's fun to make them strangers but other approaches work too.
7. As a result of all this design, I create a calendar of events that will flow over a time period. These events will happen UNLESS the PCs interfere which hopefully in at least a few instances they will. I just keep careful track of game time and I have the events keep happening. It's great for verisimilitude because the party feels like the world is moving along with them and not a static place.

Usually a region will work for a range of levels. Sometimes after that I either have to inject new things into the region or the PCs move to another region more appropriate to their level. So at higher levels they might migrate to an area where low level characters wouldn't survive long.

yes I love world building. It is why I also like simple rules. It makes crafting things far easier.

 

[mcbobbo]

Both those examples cannot be "true" sanboxes, though, because you can't (typically) say "giants are dumb, let's go somewhere else". Or "that temple has been there forever, we can come back later".

There ARE "rails" in any prepublished or even any prepared-in-advance setup. On some level you either follow what was set or you force the GM to vamp.

Then comes the illusionist techniques where you think you have decided to go somewhere else, but what you are facing is the same material reskinned.

TL;DR: Implicit assumption is GM provides something interactive for the players

 

[Sadras]

Both those examples cannot be "true" sanboxes, though, because you can't (typically) say "giants are dumb, let's go somewhere else". Or "that temple has been there forever, we can come back later".

Goal posts shifted methinks. We were discussing, predominantly, the sandboxing and railroading of adventures, not campaigns.

Either your DM allows for you to leave the area and ignore Giants/Temple (playing a sandbox campaign) or forces the issue (railroads the campaign)
It depends on your PoV. If the party decides to perform a side quest within TToEE, are they choosing to be railroaded? I would say no. Then consider, if the party decided to do TToEE within a campaign are they being railroaded? Again, I would say no.

 

[mcbobbo]

Shifting goalposts implies someone is keeping score. I'm not keeping score, are you keeping score?

The third option you overlooked is where the GM says "this is what I had planned tonight, so it's either this or we play Munchkin". Because, again, social contract.

 

[Emerikol]

I believe for an extensive drawn out campaign that runs for a long time the sandbox approach is best for me.   I don't mind the players railroading themselves but I as DM do not want to railroad them.


Keep on the Borderland is a sandbox so adventures can be written that are sandboxes.


Any linear adventure can be dropped into a sandbox setting and if the players choose to follow along the linear path it's still a sandbox setting. To me the key to sandbox is that players are never forced or even strongly encouraged to choose path A. The DM creates enough adventure in the sandbox area that people can choose to follow any railroad they want or just wander around.


I would never enjoy playing in a game where the DM was just making it up as we go. Unless he had a godlike intellect and memory so he could fool me. No one has ever fooled me even one session yet.


here is how I go about creating a sandbox...
1. I craft a region of my world and I figure out the place this region has to the big picture.
2. I develop the locales and the basic npcs of the area.
3. Then I figure out the major players of the region. You could think of them as mini-icons from 13th Age. Icons for just the region.
4. I develop the plans and plots for these individuals. Both good and evil. If adventure locations need detailing I detail them.
5. I also craft the ancient history of the region. What was here before? I then place additional adventures based on that knowledge.
6. I figure out the relationship of the PCs to the region. Often it's fun to make them strangers but other approaches work too.
7. As a result of all this design, I create a calendar of events that will flow over a time period. These events will happen UNLESS the PCs interfere which hopefully in at least a few instances they will. I just keep careful track of game time and I have the events keep happening. It's great for verisimilitude because the party feels like the world is moving along with them and not a static place.


Usually a region will work for a range of levels. Sometimes after that I either have to inject new things into the region or the PCs move to another region more appropriate to their level. So at higher levels they might migrate to an area where low level characters wouldn't survive long.


yes I love world building. It is why I also like simple rules. It makes crafting things far easier.