The Sandbox and the Railroad

[Fauchard1520]

Game designer and DM to the stars Chris Perkins once described railroading as a style of GMing that “denies [players] any opportunity to affect change through their actions or decisions.” Contrast this to sandbox design, which Technopediadefines as, “A style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will.” It’s easy to picture these styles as a continuum, with the complete freedom of players at one extreme and the absence of freedom at the other. It’s also easy to imagine the sandbox as “good thing” and the railroad as “bad thing.” Poppycock, say I! An individual player might prefer more or less structure in a game, but I believe every game needs a little bit of both.

I've got a longer write-up with a few examples beneath the comic over here, but the TLDR is this: [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As a GM, it’s your job to give players meaningful choices (read: the freedom of the sandbox). However, it’s also your job to provide them with interesting situations (read: the structure of the railroad). That’s not a continuum, kids. It’s a loop. And it’s awfully tough to hula-hoop with only half a circle.[/FONT]

 

[Tony Vargas]

Game designer and DM to the stars Chris Perkins once described railroading as a style of GMing that “denies [players] any opportunity to affect change through their actions or decisions.”
Contrast this to sandbox design, which Technopediadefines as, “A style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will.”

I don't find a lot of contrast: those are both prejudicial definitions that favor the later over the former.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think the phrase “meaningful choices” is key. I find that sandbox play, without meaningful options, just devolves into a bunch of PCs messing around. Sometimes, the end result will be awesome (if you’ve got awesome players), but other times it’ll just be murderhobo jokery that is neither sustainable nor all that fun in the long-term. Heck, on the converse, a railroad of an adventure where the only option means something to the PCs, is a lot more fun than a railroad where the only reason to do it is because the DM said so.

I always try to end my adventures (unless we’re right in the middle of something and really just ran out of time) with the question “what do you want to do next?” But even that question exists within constraints. With my AL-ish open table, since I run the hardcovers, right now the enemy is the Cult of the Dragon. The PCs could decide to faff off and go hunt werewolves or somesuch. But the events will unfold as a result of what they don’t do, as well as what they do. Either way, what they decide to do matters. Their actions have context.

 

[MNblockhead]

A sandbox is there to keep traction on the rails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_(locomotive)).

 

[Grogg of the North]

I think the bigger component of Sandbox vs Railroad is "Know your players".

I've been on rails were everyone at the table had a wonderful time. The DM wanted us to do X and X was what we were going to do anyway. I've been in a sandbox (litter box?) were the DM expected us to just go do something and the players were begging for more structure. A railroad isn't inherently bad. A sandbox will not make a bad campaign instantly better.

I find my preferred style as a DM and as a player is similar to what [MENTION=30438]Ralif Redhammer[/MENTION] said. I try to end each adventure with the question "What do you do next" and that gives the DM a prompt to plan the next adventure.

In the end, neither style is better than the other. D&D is about having fun. And if you and your group is having fun playing in the sand or riding the rails, then who cares.

 

[Seramus]

I prefer rails. Or rather, an actual story I can explore and engage with. I do want my actions to impact and change the story, but there must be a story to chase in the first place.

 

[DRF]

As a DM and player, I've found sandbox boring and frustrating. Railroading is often viewed negatively because, I presume, people go to extremes and think that there are zero real choices. That's ridiculous. When I was a player in a sandbox game, we just did whatever the loudest and most dominant player wanted for his PC. I could see the potential but it requires a certain kind of group.

I suppose people would label the published WOTC-adventures as railroady, but I've found that they offer a framework and some structure which has been very welcome. Within that framework people are free to do what they want. For example, I recently DM'ed Tomb of Annihilation, and after having finished up in the first city, the group had to decide where to go; north, south, locations X, Y, or Z? Sure, they had a finite number of options, but the choices were interesting and still provided plenty of freedom.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't find a lot of contrast: those are both prejudicial definitions that favor the later over the former.

I've been in games that are both, there is enormous difference between them. I don't think there is any end-all-be-all in RPG adventure structure approaches. But if someone tells you they are going to run a sandbox, and they actually run a sandbox, it is a very different experience indeed from a more railroaded adventure.

 

[delericho]

In general, I tend to describe my preferred approach as "London Underground" - there are lots of different sets of tracks moving in lots of different directions (intersecting here and there), and by choosing where to change trains you can go in many different directions. And if you really want, you can always go up to the surface and walk!

I suppose people would label the published WOTC-adventures as railroady, but I've found that they offer a framework and some structure which has been very welcome.

I think I've seen these referred to as "Theme Park" adventures - there are lots of different set-pieces scattered around, but it's up to the players to interact with them as they see fit.

In terms of structure, I've been quite impressed with several of the 5e adventures (Lost Mine, CoS, SKT), at least for the middle parts of the adventures.

 

[Eltab]

I don't find a lot of contrast: those are both prejudicial definitions that favor the later over the former.

Given that I have family who worked for a railroad, I don't find either description negative. (But apparently I'm weird and special that way.)