D&D 5E What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?

[Mark CMG]

*snip*

Again, we've had the conversation before about modern RPGs introducing Storytelling game elements and you know that when I discuss RPGs in the above posts, I'm discussing the functionality of a traditional RPG. My posts are very clear on that. Cutting a sliver out of my post about water to tell me it's wrong because it doesn't mention rocks is going to continue to be an exercise in frustration for you. Pointing to RPGs that clearly are introducing Storytelling game elements doesn't change that. I know you recognize that this is the situation that exists, so I am not sure why you keep trying to quote chunks of what I say and act as if I am wrong because I don't share your position. If your intention is to tell the OP to introduce Storytelling game elements, then by all means that might be great advice for him and do so but quoting me seems to be a less than productive way of giving advice to the OP considering what you already know and what I have posted.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think so. At least when I say "Adventure Path" I mean a series of adventures designed to be the campaign.

Where I mean it as a somewhat-connected series of adventures designed to be *part of* the greater campaign.

An example from early in my current campaign. After the first adventure the party split into two (meaning I'd now be running 2 nights a week, no problem). One of those groups went into a stand-alone adventure, followed by a second disconnected stand-alone adventure that was intended to (and did) set up the 5-adventure "Fires" path (or series) that followed; five discrete adventures in a common theme and story the last of which cannot be done without first doing the other four. After that path was done the party split again; some characters retired, others went into other parties...a few are still active today...but the campaign continued.

To me, Fires isn't any less an adventure path just because it wasn't the whole campaign.

I think an event-based adventure is almost guaranteed to be a railroad unless the number of events is kept to a small number of tightly-connected happenings (intro, foreshadowing, crunch).

Depends. If it doesn't matter in which order the events occur (or whether they occur at all) it's hard to call it a railroad.

Let's take a dungeon where the DM hopes to run the party through events A-H in order. Now yes, if the adventure is set up to fail unless that order is followed and allthe events are hit, you're on rails. But if things can work out just fine if the party do it in order D-G-B-F-E (either accidentally or by intentional choice) and skip A C and H entirely, no railroad.

It comes down to whether a DM is willing to allow her players to completely miss something important in a dungeon, and have her world suffer the consequences (if any).

Lan-"come on baby, do the locomotion"-efan

 

[pemerton]

If it doesn't matter in which order the events occur (or whether they occur at all) it's hard to call it a railroad.

Agreed. But at that point we don't really have an event-based adventure. We have a series of ideas on the part of the GM about ways in which to confront the PCs (and thereby the players) - in your post you use the word "hope".

Once we work out that this is how we're going to run our game - and it's a fine way - the next question is what sort of prep and what sort of approach makes sense for it. You're probably not going to write up a whole slew of events in detail that may or may not get used. It might be better to prepare some material that lets you come up with events on the spur of the moment in response to what the players are doing.

For my part, the sort of material that I prepare includes maps (generally taken from modules), NPCs with stats, and notes on who is related to who, and how, so that I can adjudicate ramifications of player choices and bring the right sort of NPCs into play in response.

 

[Reynard]

Where I mean it as a somewhat-connected series of adventures designed to be *part of* the greater campaign.

An example from early in my current campaign. After the first adventure the party split into two (meaning I'd now be running 2 nights a week, no problem). One of those groups went into a stand-alone adventure, followed by a second disconnected stand-alone adventure that was intended to (and did) set up the 5-adventure "Fires" path (or series) that followed; five discrete adventures in a common theme and story the last of which cannot be done without first doing the other four. After that path was done the party split again; some characters retired, others went into other parties...a few are still active today...but the campaign continued.

To me, Fires isn't any less an adventure path just because it wasn't the whole campaign.

But the term has never been applied that way before -- at least capital-A Adventure capital-P Path has not been used that way. A series of linked adventures within a campaign is not an Adventure Path by any conventional use of the term, especially in the context we are using it here. So to say that you have an Adventure Path in the middle of your campaign sort of intentionally misses the point of the discussion, doesn't it?

 

[pemerton]

But the term has never been applied that way before

<snip>

So to say that you have an Adventure Path in the middle of your campaign sort of intentionally misses the point of the discussion, doesn't it?

I understood what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] meant and I'm not used to seeing Adventure Path used in such a narrow way as you are insisting on.

 

[Reynard]

I understood what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] meant and I'm not used to seeing Adventure Path used in such a narrow way as you are insisting on.

Interesting. I have never seen it used in a way other than "complete campaign from 1st to X" other than in a sort of retroactive application to 1E adventure series, and even then it's usually in context to GDQ or DL. The term was coined by Paizo during their Dungeon era, if I am not mistaken, and their form is the only one I am familiar with. What would constitute a published AP that isn't primarily intended to be a whole campaign?

 

[S'mon]

The term theory heads use for consciously enjoying railroading is "participationism".

And "adventure paths" are definitely that--there are many opportunities in the modules with that label to offer more choice that are not taken and there is explicit advice to ensure certain set-pieces occur.

A player can think "Ok, this is where we're supposed to go for the big fight" and be fine with it.

And that's fine: they like that.

But I'm simply saying: not everyone does. Alot of players do not want to play along, they want a real sandbox.

My experience playing a couple APs was that even though I was generally keen to follow
the tracks, now and then I'd take a wrong turn and bump up against the walls of the AP
like a scene in The Truman Show:
Me: "How about we investigate those other goblin tribes? "
GM: "No, they're not detailed. Only the Thistletop tribe."
And I'd find that really frustrating. I think an AP GM needs to be prepared to create
additional content for such occasions.

 

[S'mon]

This is an approach to avoiding railroading that does not involve sandboxing. It's a real thing, that some real RPGers actually do.

I think scene-framing is very common in Dramatist (Drama-oriented) games that are
definitely traditional RPGs, not Storygames (story-creation games)- Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG or even the old WEG 1980s The Price of Freedom & to an extent d6 Star Wars RPGs used it.

And even in a sandbox campaign the GM normally frames the opening scene for drama -
which can have the slightly unfortunate effect IME that often the opening scene is the best
thing in the campaign...

 

[pemerton]

What would constitute a published AP that isn't primarily intended to be a whole campaign?

Dunno about published. But - never having bought or played a Paizo AP myself - I've always assumed that those who do play them might dip in and out, or use one leg of the AP for part of their campaign. I've never assumed that most players of them religiously start at 1st level and go all the way through to 20th.

More generally, when I think of AP play as a playstyle, I think of a pre-scripted scenario that is meant to occupy a large chunk of playtime (say, months rather than a session or three). And with the opposition and basic trajectory all scripted out before the players even arrive at the table.

 

[pemerton]

I think scene-framing is very common in Dramatist (Drama-oriented) games

What's with this old-fashioned terminology!