Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
It needs to be more of a sandbox than a railroad?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6381399" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The last time I GMed KotB it was more like what mcbobbo describes in the final quoted sentence than what Emerikol describes in the first quoted sentence.</p><p></p><p>The players had both built (multi-class) thief PCs. Of all the classic D&D classes, in my view the thief actually provides the clearest hooks for the GM: players who build thieves want to engage in skull-duggery.</p><p></p><p>So, I narrated them as being in the Keep, and then framed them into conflict with the evil priest (it was a long time ago, so I've forgotten the details). The campaign ended up being about the cult (which I ran as a necromantic death cult), and in due course the focus of adventure moved from the Keep to a nearby town which had also been infiltrated by the cult. The PCs never went to the caves (I can't remember if they ever explored the "wilderness").</p><p></p><p>So I did provide something interactive for the players, drawing on the material provided by the module. But, contrary to the paragraph from mcbobbo in the middle of the quotes, the players didn't have to take their PCs into the caves. All of us (players and GM) followed the adventure where it led.</p><p></p><p>Similar to my discussion with [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], I think it misdescribes the range of options to treat sandbox and railroad as two extremes on a spectrum. There are other approaches. For instance, if the GM describes the Keep being under attack by hobgoblins from the Caves, then that is "forcing the issue", but - provided the GM is actually framing the PCs into a situation of interest to the players - then they are not just going to have their PCs leave the area.</p><p></p><p>But this goes back to the issue of D&D adventure design, raised upthread by [MENTION=6670763]Yora[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION]. D&D modules have a tendency to be very weak when it comes to the situation. So instead of suggestions for forcing the issue by dropping the players into the action ("You are in the Keep when hobgoblins assault it - how do you react?"), they tend to either set out a rather static situation (static, at least, as far as the PCs are concerned - eg KotB, GDQ, etc) or else set up a "hook" which the PCs have to follow if the adventure is to go anywhere at all (countless examples could be given, but Dead Gods and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits are two that come straight to mind).</p><p></p><p>That's one reason why I'm fairly choosy with the modules that I use.</p><p></p><p>I think the tension in this paragraph brings out my own objections to railroading - they purport to give dramatic narrative but in fact frequently fail to do so, precisely because of that "why should I care?" problem. The player is, in effect, being prescribed a pre-given emotional response by the GM.</p><p></p><p>This can work in certain media - cinema is particularly good at it - but in my experience RPGing typically isn't such a medium. And the quality of the stories (plot, theme and especially actual, real-life pacing) is such that they don't work just as stories on their own terms. They work by way of buy-in. And the safest pathway to buy-in is co-creation.</p><p></p><p>Which rules out railroading.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what audience you are writing adventures for. Are you talking about commercial publication? I think that certainly imposes some fairly stringent additional constraints on adventure design.</p><p></p><p>When I am preparing adventures for my own game, I focus on open-ended encounters, and strong framing based upon PC build and subsequent PC play. Well-conceived situations that hook onto the players' preferences (as expressed via build and play of their PCs) means that I don't really need a "main story arc". Good situations lead to engaged play, and with engaged play the story arc will take care of itself.</p><p></p><p>Here's a <a href="http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?736425-Burning-Wheel-First-Burning-Wheel-session" target="_blank">link</a> to the Burning Wheel session I ran last weekend. To run that session I needed the players to build PCs with some clear motivations, plus my map of Greyhawk with its geography around the Wooly Bay. The rest "wrote" itself.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure how I would present that as a module: maybe maps and some basic geography; NPCs with motivations and connections; some ideas for possible conflicts/developments; and advice on what sorts of PCs the players might build to hook into all this.</p><p></p><p>I think the 4e Neverwinter Campaign Guide is a possible model for this sort of thing. So is the Penumbra d20 module Three Days to Kill (though at a smaller scale).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6381399, member: 42582"] The last time I GMed KotB it was more like what mcbobbo describes in the final quoted sentence than what Emerikol describes in the first quoted sentence. The players had both built (multi-class) thief PCs. Of all the classic D&D classes, in my view the thief actually provides the clearest hooks for the GM: players who build thieves want to engage in skull-duggery. So, I narrated them as being in the Keep, and then framed them into conflict with the evil priest (it was a long time ago, so I've forgotten the details). The campaign ended up being about the cult (which I ran as a necromantic death cult), and in due course the focus of adventure moved from the Keep to a nearby town which had also been infiltrated by the cult. The PCs never went to the caves (I can't remember if they ever explored the "wilderness"). So I did provide something interactive for the players, drawing on the material provided by the module. But, contrary to the paragraph from mcbobbo in the middle of the quotes, the players didn't have to take their PCs into the caves. All of us (players and GM) followed the adventure where it led. Similar to my discussion with [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], I think it misdescribes the range of options to treat sandbox and railroad as two extremes on a spectrum. There are other approaches. For instance, if the GM describes the Keep being under attack by hobgoblins from the Caves, then that is "forcing the issue", but - provided the GM is actually framing the PCs into a situation of interest to the players - then they are not just going to have their PCs leave the area. But this goes back to the issue of D&D adventure design, raised upthread by [MENTION=6670763]Yora[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION]. D&D modules have a tendency to be very weak when it comes to the situation. So instead of suggestions for forcing the issue by dropping the players into the action ("You are in the Keep when hobgoblins assault it - how do you react?"), they tend to either set out a rather static situation (static, at least, as far as the PCs are concerned - eg KotB, GDQ, etc) or else set up a "hook" which the PCs have to follow if the adventure is to go anywhere at all (countless examples could be given, but Dead Gods and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits are two that come straight to mind). That's one reason why I'm fairly choosy with the modules that I use. I think the tension in this paragraph brings out my own objections to railroading - they purport to give dramatic narrative but in fact frequently fail to do so, precisely because of that "why should I care?" problem. The player is, in effect, being prescribed a pre-given emotional response by the GM. This can work in certain media - cinema is particularly good at it - but in my experience RPGing typically isn't such a medium. And the quality of the stories (plot, theme and especially actual, real-life pacing) is such that they don't work just as stories on their own terms. They work by way of buy-in. And the safest pathway to buy-in is co-creation. Which rules out railroading. I'm not sure what audience you are writing adventures for. Are you talking about commercial publication? I think that certainly imposes some fairly stringent additional constraints on adventure design. When I am preparing adventures for my own game, I focus on open-ended encounters, and strong framing based upon PC build and subsequent PC play. Well-conceived situations that hook onto the players' preferences (as expressed via build and play of their PCs) means that I don't really need a "main story arc". Good situations lead to engaged play, and with engaged play the story arc will take care of itself. Here's a [url=http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?736425-Burning-Wheel-First-Burning-Wheel-session]link[/url] to the Burning Wheel session I ran last weekend. To run that session I needed the players to build PCs with some clear motivations, plus my map of Greyhawk with its geography around the Wooly Bay. The rest "wrote" itself. I'm not sure how I would present that as a module: maybe maps and some basic geography; NPCs with motivations and connections; some ideas for possible conflicts/developments; and advice on what sorts of PCs the players might build to hook into all this. I think the 4e Neverwinter Campaign Guide is a possible model for this sort of thing. So is the Penumbra d20 module Three Days to Kill (though at a smaller scale). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
It needs to be more of a sandbox than a railroad?
Top