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

[LostSoul]

Oddly, I've been in sandbox games like that.

We go to the forest and get pounded into the dirt.
We go to the mountains and get pounded into the dirt.
We go to the desert, get diseased, cursed and then pounded into the dirt.
We stay in the city and the unstoppable super mage army burns down the town and pounds us into the dirt.

A sandbox can become a litter box very quickly.

I think one of the keys to running a good sandbox is that the players need to have a lot of information. They need to be able to make decisions. If the forest, mountains, desert, and cities are dangerous, the DM needs to inform the players of the situation. Then, perhaps, they will take to the plains. (Not that I think it would have done anything for you, Grogg.)

Also sandboxes have nothing to do with random tables, assuming you ever actually experienced that it wasnt a sandbox.

I'm not sure if you're saying that random tables have no place in a sandbox, or if random tables are "sandbox agnostic". I try to run a sandbox game (that has plenty of emotional instances!) and I use random tables all the time.

 

[pemerton]

Is it not fair to say that since they didn't go to the caves, you brought the cult to them?

Unless maybe that nearby town was always there and not made up to facilitate the adventure?

I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at.

The players had built thief PCs. It was clear that they wanted to play a game of thiefly hijinks - partly because that's the reason for building thieves, partly because of the actions they declared for their PCs, which involved sneaking through the Keep doing sneaky stuff.

I can't remember the details because it's around 25 years ago, but the most interesting element in the Keep itself is the evil priest. So I drew on that. As they explored the cult, I elaborated the details.

The nearby town was Critwall on the World of Greyhawk maps - I had placed the Keep in the Shield Lands, which seemed (and still seems) sensible enough. The cult elements in the town I made up as the players followed leads and further explored the nature of the cult. (Again, details are hazy but I think the wife of the mayor of Critwall was one of the more significant cult members.)

Anyway, that's a bit more detail - but where are you asking me to go with it?

Either the door is open or the door is closed. You can certainly close and open the door as many times as you want, but the door will either be open or closed at a specific point in time.

This is a metaphor. I don't really understand it.

If "the door" is "the ability to choose how to respond to the situations they confront" then the door is open.

If "the door" is "the ability to frame their own contests" then the door is shut - GM authority over scene-framing is pretty central to indie-style play, which is why it is not the same as sandbox play.

But it is also important to distinguish authority and more general issues of authorship. Another central feature of indie-style play is that the GM frames scenes that deploy material that the players have authored, either directly via PC backstory, or indirectly and collaboratively via past action resolution.

So, for instance, the reason for framing further scenes involving the cult is because the players indicate that their PCs are going hunting for cult members.

I'm unsure the bolded text (emphasis mine) is even needed given that the DM is always going to frame things of interest to the players.

In fact, in the traditional D&D adventure, the GM writes the adventure before the players have even designed their PCs.

And in an adventure path the whole thing is authored in advance of PC-creation and play.

When I talk about framing in response to hooks provided by the players, I'm talking about the GM following the players' lead in framing scenes and providing opposition.

Here is one simple way to tell the difference: if your campaign has "sidequests" then it is not player-driven in the sense I am describing, because the existence of "sidequests" presupposes the existence of a main, GM-driven, quest.

In a game run indie-style there is no conceptual scope for sidequests because the whole game is nothing but player-driven "sidequests".

I disagree, based on your example below. It is a railroad.

Where is the railroad? How can a game be a railroad if there is no pre-authorship of the backstory, the opponents, the situations, the conflicts, the outcomes?

I find one technique to encourage players to follow a course of action (progress the story), instead of forcing-the-issue in one or another way, is to "roleplay" more. Have the NPCs be more engaging with the PCs, and somehow implant an emotion/opinion that shatters the intial indifference of the players.

And when I mean "roleplay more" and "engaging" - I mean through the use of voices, gestures, being chatty, displaying NPC peculiarities, description...etc. Displaying an illusion of sandbox, but using suggestive techniques.

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but you seem to be describing, here, techniques for railroading the players, by encouraging them to go along with the GM's desired course of action.

I don't want to encourage players to "progress the story". Or rather, I don't need to: if the players have well-built PCs, and I frame situations that speak to those PCs (and thereby to the players), then the players will declare actions for their PCs and "story" will follow. That story will shape and reshape the PCs, suggesting new situations, etc etc, in a virtuous circle from which the campaign emerges.
[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] first pointed me to this blog post which states the basic technique (but I discovered the technique, haltingly and via my own trial and error, twenty-something years before the blog was written):

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications . . .

The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. . . . [T]hey naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know . . . what the character thinks and wants. . .

[O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation . . . that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices . . .​

If the game slows down then either the players haven't been clear enough on what their PCs think and want, or (more likely) I haven't framed an interesting enough situation. Luckily these problems are easily dealt with in the course of actual play - the players can bring out (either via table talk or via roleplay) what it is their PCs think and want, and/or I can inject more material into the situation (eg cultist assassins turn up and confront the PCs!).

 

[neonagash]

Weren't we talking about BAD sandboxes and BAD railroads? Don't construe my posts to apply to all sandboxes. There are creative DMs who put a lot of little things into their worlds and then let players find them, like an easter egg hunt. A good sandbox is something like that. There are things to find, and you just need to go out and find them. A bad sandbox is like that parent who just wants to keep their kid busy for a couple hours and so they hide one or two eggs in the entire yard, and then claim that the kid must have misbehaved or something so the easter bunny didn't leave them more.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about BAD executions of sandboxes. And I'm sorry, no matter how many times a DM tells me "it's out there, keep looking!" If I wander around for 3-4 hours during our session and don't turn up anything, I'm gonna start thinking that no, it really isn't out there.

Yes but you didnt describe a bad sandbox. You described a bad railroad that went off the rails and what seemed to be a deeply confused DM rolling dice to deal with it rather then improvising on the fly.

So yeah, when you say "pizza sucks because my last hamburger was awful" I'm gonna point out the dysfunction in the argument.

 

[neonagash]

Definitely agnostic.

Nothing wrong with random encounters, or random weather (i have a nice one I use each morning for adventures).

But when a whole campaign is "duh I'm confused, roll a random encounter" thats not a sandbox. Its a random crap pile. And probably would have been no matter what sort of adventure was being intended.

 

[mcbobbo]

But when a whole campaign is "duh I'm confused, roll a random encounter" thats not a sandbox. Its a random crap pile. And probably would have been no matter what sort of adventure was being intended.

The biggest problem with railroad vs sandbox discussions is definitely always the people who get religious about it. When every argument is buttressed by opinion alone, you can tell the discussion is going to have less and less value as it moves forward. Well, possibly more entertainment value, but flame wars do get old eventually.

Not the 'duh' in the quote above, used to imply inferiority, as though no True Scottsman DM has ever used dice for input when at a loss of what to do next. Then we get overt about the 'crap pile'. Games is serious business, and this DM was found unworthy.

Blah.

 

[Jacob Marley]

But when a whole campaign is "duh I'm confused, roll a random encounter" thats not a sandbox. Its a random crap pile. And probably would have been no matter what sort of adventure was being intended.

One of the best tools in my toolbox is Mythic: Game Master Emulator. The emulator is intended to be used for solo and GM-less gaming, however it can also be utilized by GMs to provide inspiration for, and context to, their encounters.

I have run countless sessions using the random encounter tables in the 1983 Greyhawk boxed set and AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, modified by rolls on the Mythic:GME tables, that produced interesting, dynamic, and emotionally impactful encounters.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes but you didnt describe a bad sandbox. You described a bad railroad that went off the rails and what seemed to be a deeply confused DM rolling dice to deal with it rather then improvising on the fly.

I would posit that since you were not part of my game, you're in a poor position to tell me what sort of game it was.

The "sandbox" v. "railroad" dichotomy is a false one (as are most comparisons in the gaming world). The world does not exist of it's own accord, it functions only to the extent that it has been designed to. A "true" sandbox is reality, since a TTRPG cannot fully simulate reality, it cannot be a true sandbox.

Once that's out of the way, all we are left with is varying degrees of choice and variability. A heavy sandbox might provide a lot of opportunities to hunt wolves, kill kobolds or engage in world-shattering events, while a strong railroad might only give us the option to follow the chain of events leading to a single outcome.

A heavy sandbox is essentially a game wherein there are many potential adventures and campaigns. But there are still only so many as the creator placed into them.

 

[neonagash]

The biggest problem with railroad vs sandbox discussions is definitely always the people who get religious about it. When every argument is buttressed by opinion alone, you can tell the discussion is going to have less and less value as it moves forward. Well, possibly more entertainment value, but flame wars do get old eventually.

Not the 'duh' in the quote above, used to imply inferiority, as though no True Scottsman DM has ever used dice for input when at a loss of what to do next. Then we get overt about the 'crap pile'. Games is serious business, and this DM was found unworthy.

Blah.

Are you honestly pretending you dont see a difference between the occasional random encounter or treasure table and having THE WHOLE GAME be nothing but random encounters?

Sorry but yeah, that would be a sign of inferiority. Of course we both know its actually a lame strawman but hey whatever.

 

[neonagash]

A heavy sandbox is essentially a game wherein there are many potential adventures and campaigns. But there are still only so many as the creator placed into them.

Kinda, your leaving out the possibility of player generated content of the world entirely though. Most sandboxes have lots of opportunity for player content to be injected into the world. So its really not just about what was placed into them by a GM.

 

[Oryan77]

So I started this thread because I'm amazed at how many people voted for a "sandbox" adventure being the 2nd most important thing to writing an adventure. And frankly, I'm sick of the whole "sandbox" bandwagon since it comes off as elitist and basically is saying that I'm not doing something right when I run my adventures. By several of the replies, it seems like that is still the case.

So I want to disprove that myth. Not that I am trying to say a sandbox game is bad. I'm trying to say, a sandbox does not automatically make it good and a railroad does not automatically make it bad.

Common themes I see a lot with sandbox games is that the DM does the following things:

1. The internet has made it seem like sandboxes = good and railroads = bad. That's BS, but it doesn't stop a ton of DMs from trying to appear holier than thou by labeling themselves as a sandbox DM and then badmouths a railroad game.

2. Many DMs use this as an excuse to be lazy. They think that by being a sandbox DM, it means that they'll automatically be welcomed with open arms since the internet says that sandboxes are better. And then it means that they don't have to prepare anything because, hey, it's a sandbox and we can't predict what the players will do. It's a perfect scapegoat for the lazy DM!

3. There is an awful lot of pointless dialogue and pointless activities that go on in a sandbox game. My PCs spent time gardening, talking to random old ladies in their front yards, I've had conversations about radishes, one of my PCs did some manual labor and helped the guards set up a blockade for a possible zombie attack (roleplayed out and then the invasion was too hard for my PC, probably because it wasn't planned ahead of time), and I once roamed aimlessly around town because I was expected to use in-game time to learn about the cites first hand rather than learn them through adventuring. The DM just waited for me to provide the hook and I had no idea what to do since it was the first session. After 4 hours of this, I realized that the DM was hinting that I might like to leave town and randomly explore the surrounding area. If he just ran a freaking published adventure, I could have been well into chapter 2 by then, met lots of interesting NPCs and venues, had a clear goal, already killed some bad guys, and had fun for 4 hours. But according to the internet, that's not fun since that adventure was thrust upon me and I didn't choose to do that myself via the sandbox.

That is how it comes off from my personal experience playing in sandbox games (every single one of them I've played in). And that's the impression I get when I hear a lot of DMs online claiming that sandboxes are the one-true-way and anything remotely as coming off as a railroad is garbage. I mean for crying out loud, how often do I see someone say, "blah blah blah which is why I don't buy or run published adventures." I've DMed for almost 20 years and 90% of what I run is from published adventures. They wouldn't keep making them if people didn't think they were good. You're just being an elitist cause you're obviously more talented at DMing than I am.

I've also very rarely been bored in an adventure that would be classified as a railroad. My PC has a clear goal, it's interesting, I'm making progress, I'm killing stuff and taking loot, and most importantly, I'm not bored and I'm having fun. So tell me again why an adventure with a linear path (aka railroad) is bad? Cause I thought I was playing D&D to have fun? Which I am.

Before anyone starts getting defensive, relax. Pay attention to what I'm saying rather than skimming over it so you can reply back to tell me I'm wrong. Yes, I understand a railroad can be bad when done by a bad DM. That in no way makes a railroad game bad though. I also understand that plenty of sandbox DMs are not lazy, they do prepare things, and they are good at running a sandbox game. I have just never had the pleasure to play in ones game. My point is that any DM worth a dang is going to recognize the good/bad of both sandbox and railroaded games and knows that both are equally as fun if run by the right DM. A good DM may even do a bit of both in his campaign. To completely disregard one or the other is insanity to me. The only logic I can get from that is that you are trying to be an elitist.

Then it's all the player's fault for missing this or not doing that or whatever it is the DM really wanted us to go after.

I understand what you're saying since the sandbox games I've played in were pretty much just that. Not necessarily using random encounter tables, but the DMs definitely just pulled some random encounter out of thin air since we were getting bored due to not knowing WTF to do and not finding his "hooks" fast enough.

So we get some random fight so we're not bored, but this is all unplanned since it's a "sandbox" game. Which means, the DM didn't give the challenge rating system any thought, and now his "random" encounters are too tough for our level. Not that I think he is making them too tough on purpose. It's just that since he didn't actually prepare it beforehand, he's unable to gauge how hard it actually will be for us. Is that what you are actually referring to?

The only thing wrong with that, is everything.

With a sandbox it IS the players jobs to be an active part of the universe and ask questions and look for interesting things to do rather then sitting there and being spoon fed cliched hooks.

If the GM is beating you over the head with "this way lies the adventure" its NOT a sandbox.

Look, based on how you are replying to people, I'm sure I know what I'm about to get myself in to. But I'm going to take a stab at this and see if we can discuss it maturely.

You seem to be very pro sandbox, to the point that you're willing to even tell a guy that his sandbox game is a railroad game just so there isn't a blemish on your preferred style. But the guy has very valid points, because I've experienced the same thing. And I know what the difference between the two styles of games are since I've been at this long enough.

I am noticing one thing here though. You are focusing more on the campaign being a sandbox rather than the adventures like the OP (oh that's me) was focusing on at the start. There is a difference. Here is what I mean:

I run lots of railroaded adventures. But I like to think that I try to keep my campaign world as sandboxy as possible. The PCs are free to do as they wish (within reason). They help build the story around the adventures that I provide for them. I even encourage them to be pro-active and do their own thing so that I am not spoon feeding them content. What I do though, is railroad my adventures so that they integrate with what it is the PCs are doing. I've said it before, it's the illusion that I am not railroading. I want to run an adventure because it sounds exciting for me as a DM to DM, I paid for it, and I've prepared it. It will not go to waste, and it will be fun (well, I hope...we've all had a few stinkers whether self-written or not).

The key is, not to jump the gun. If the timing is not right, I will put it off until I can somehow weave it into what the PCs are currently doing. Even now, I'm itching to start my epic adventure and the PCs keep going off on a tangent and we haven't started it yet. It's been two months, with another month to go it seems, and I haven't started it. Right now I'm just rolling with the punches and making things up as we go until they are finished doing what they are doing. But we will start this adventure. I've never once had a player complain about how I run adventures because they are having fun and it isn't obvious that I do railroad them into doing what the adventure expects of them. Or maybe they do notice sometimes and they just don't care cause they are having fun. At the same time, I'm not railroading a single outcome. If they fail, they fail. And boy did they fail when I ran Dead Gods. Orcus came back in full force thanks to the PCs failing. But I managed to railroad them into completely every single chapter in that adventure. The thing is, they felt like they made those choices themselves.