Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
Chris Perkins did an amazing job of skewing perspectives to see things his way. I don't subscribe. There is a lot more to consider than just such simplistic labels which marginalize everything that goes into something as complex as running an RPG. Whether it's a one-shot adventure or a campaigning spanning multiple worlds, there is more to be said about the execution and delivery of a good game experience, not the least important as the reception given from those who participate (i.e. actual players involved in any particular instance). "Sandbox" is not always greater than "railroads" just by virtue of category, and vice versa. As someone else succinctly put it (and beat me to the punch), a sandbox is just a box of dirt, and roller coasters are also railroads. Perspective is everything. But don't misunderstand my point: there are good and bad examples of both, which means neither is superior or inferior to each other. They are simply different styles of play.
A "good railroad" is like a roller coaster you want to ride. The ride is predictable, but thrilling when designed to excite the rider. Paizo's Adventure Paths are good examples of this. Their lengthy adventures follow a largely linear progression but typically have enough story depth, theme consistency, and character hooks to keep a group's interest for the entire length of the campaign. Some are more popular than others, and there are some points within that may be dull, but that is no different than how we would rank different roller coasters; some coasters are more exciting than others, and everyone has their favorites.
A "bad railroad", on the other hand, could just be a bland adventure module lacking continuity, interest, or otherwise unable to keep the attention of the players who are basically forced to see it through. Usually it is a result from a DM focused on showcasing his personal design or story without any consideration of the player's investment. For example, you're stuck in a tower full of traps and goblins and cannot leave until you clear all 50 rooms, each with a goblin and a random trap. This is a more common mindset of earlier 1st Edition (or OSR) material where the adventure modules were like amusement park rides where you challenge your character creations rather than story-telling. Still, a really good dungeon design or story can still be enjoyable.
Sandboxes, on the other hand, work a little differently. It only works if you have players invested in the sandbox to begin with. If you offer them an open map and just ask where to go next, that may be freedom of choice. But without motive, story, or incentive, it's just wandering. Players usually need some direction, unless they've already planned their character's career and story before the game even began. Then they're just fulfilling a fantasy, and the DM is just acting as the chauffeur.
A better sandbox has story or motivation which the players can invest, and choices (or the illusion of choices) for players to pick their own path, possibly altering the course of things to come. A sandbox can be any size between a small village with several sites of interest, to an entire world(s) free to explore. Ideally, the size should match the scope of the story, as well as stay within the DMs ability to provide reasonable coverage. Granted, some DMs are more capable of improvising material on the fly than others, but that's simply a matter of knowing your limitations and explaining reasonable expectations with your group.
Personally, I think this kind of bias portrayed by Perkins, whether intentional or otherwise, is more harmful than good. "Sandbox" and "railroad" are just two different styles. Knowing what makes good and bad examples of both is more critical to becoming a skillful DM. But how you really know isn't from what a bunch of strangers online say, but how your actual players respond.
A "good railroad" is like a roller coaster you want to ride. The ride is predictable, but thrilling when designed to excite the rider. Paizo's Adventure Paths are good examples of this. Their lengthy adventures follow a largely linear progression but typically have enough story depth, theme consistency, and character hooks to keep a group's interest for the entire length of the campaign. Some are more popular than others, and there are some points within that may be dull, but that is no different than how we would rank different roller coasters; some coasters are more exciting than others, and everyone has their favorites.
A "bad railroad", on the other hand, could just be a bland adventure module lacking continuity, interest, or otherwise unable to keep the attention of the players who are basically forced to see it through. Usually it is a result from a DM focused on showcasing his personal design or story without any consideration of the player's investment. For example, you're stuck in a tower full of traps and goblins and cannot leave until you clear all 50 rooms, each with a goblin and a random trap. This is a more common mindset of earlier 1st Edition (or OSR) material where the adventure modules were like amusement park rides where you challenge your character creations rather than story-telling. Still, a really good dungeon design or story can still be enjoyable.
Sandboxes, on the other hand, work a little differently. It only works if you have players invested in the sandbox to begin with. If you offer them an open map and just ask where to go next, that may be freedom of choice. But without motive, story, or incentive, it's just wandering. Players usually need some direction, unless they've already planned their character's career and story before the game even began. Then they're just fulfilling a fantasy, and the DM is just acting as the chauffeur.
A better sandbox has story or motivation which the players can invest, and choices (or the illusion of choices) for players to pick their own path, possibly altering the course of things to come. A sandbox can be any size between a small village with several sites of interest, to an entire world(s) free to explore. Ideally, the size should match the scope of the story, as well as stay within the DMs ability to provide reasonable coverage. Granted, some DMs are more capable of improvising material on the fly than others, but that's simply a matter of knowing your limitations and explaining reasonable expectations with your group.
Personally, I think this kind of bias portrayed by Perkins, whether intentional or otherwise, is more harmful than good. "Sandbox" and "railroad" are just two different styles. Knowing what makes good and bad examples of both is more critical to becoming a skillful DM. But how you really know isn't from what a bunch of strangers online say, but how your actual players respond.