"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[Katana_Geldar]

I find that you need to find a balance between railroading and for the want of a better word can be called "freedom". Railroading is a very, very powerful temptation that a GM needs to recognise and resist. Do the PCs have to find out about the plot in that way? It's not their fault they missed it or blew it up.

However, sometimes if the PCs are going completely in the wrong direction you need to call a time out. I have said a few times OOC x is important to the plot, you may want to check it out, particularly when I have pitched a game and the players have agreed to play it. This is the case a lot of the time with modules, by bringing the module the players have agreed to follow the story, there can be loose bits where they deviate but the module is usually what the GM is prepared to run.

I approach Star Wars games rather differently though, as all of them are customised. By now, I have a pretty good idea what sort of games in the Star Wars universe my players like to play. I use the three act formula, three events that usually take up two sessions each with outcomes that are independant of what the players actually do. Star Wars games are also a lot more character-driven, as that is the nature of the game. My player usually take turns in the spotlight, which has recently shifted away from two players to give others a turn.
One of the best things about SW I think is the starships, as the players who don't turn up are simply back at the ship.

 

[pemerton]

So reasonably, the PCs are lured by one or more hooks to want to explore the caves. Gold, hostages, fighting evil by moonlight, etc.

Waitasecond...

First, we assume the PCs actually WANT to go to the caves, because quite easily here the DM could use the power of the choo-choo to force them there. Even if the DM starts them all out in the Keep with the classic 3d6x10 gp worth of stuff, they might, as a group, be more interested in other things.

But it doesn't stop the fact that if you want Tony to get revenge or you want to slay the lich-king, you gotta bite the DMs plot hooks for a while.

There is an alternative. The GM can design encounters/scenarios that "bite" the hooks that the players have built into their PCs.

I'm not saying it isn't fun, but it's not the only way to play.

Some good posts. Unfortunately I can't posrep you at this time.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

The time when I most railroad, if I do it at all, would have to be at the start of games when I need to get the players into the story. And sometimes I do this apologetically, if the players are really clueless and not biting the plothooks at all.

If they keep missing them, you tend to get tired of dangling them.

 

[the Jester]

WARNING Will Robinson! This is the point of danger. The DM has an end-point goal. In a sandbox, he doesn't. The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there. Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes.

This. One mark of a good true sandbox DM, imho, is that if the bad guys are trying to destroy the world, the DM is okay with the world ending up destroyed. If the pcs ignore or fail to stop the world-devouring threat and there is nobody else willing and able to hold back the hordes of annihilation, well, them's the breaks.

And yes, I speak as someone whose campaign world of about 15 years ended up devoured by Tharizdun.

What happened next? I drew a new map and the players grabbed up 4d6.

 

[the Jester]

However, sometimes if the PCs are going completely in the wrong direction you need to call a time out.

You're assuming that there is a "wrong" direction. Someone as far to the "sandboxer" end of the spectrum as myself doesn't do that.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

I'm talking about strange things like hanging around in the pub for hours, going to planet X when you need to go to Y or a general "let's not go to the dungeon we expected to go through in this game when we signed up for it".

 

[El Mahdi]

WARNING Will Robinson! This is the point of danger. The DM has an end-point goal. In a sandbox, he doesn't. The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there. Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes.

This. One mark of a good true sandbox DM, imho, is that if the bad guys are trying to destroy the world, the DM is okay with the world ending up destroyed. If the pcs ignore or fail to stop the world-devouring threat and there is nobody else willing and able to hold back the hordes of annihilation, well, them's the breaks.

Using your definition of a sandbox DM:

Just because a sandbox DM is okay if the end goal isn't achieved, it doesn't necessarily follow that a sandbox DM can't have an end goal. A sandbox DM will simply not railroad the players toward that one goal, but will allow them to go where they want. Having a goal does not define sandbox or railroad...what you do with it does.

 

[Nagol]

Using your definition of a sandbox DM:

Just because a sandbox DM is okay if the end goal isn't achieved, it doesn't necessarily follow that a sandbox DM can't have an end goal. A sandbox DM will simply not railroad the players toward that one goal, but will allow them to go where they want. Having a goal does not define sandbox or railroad...what you do with it does.

It can be hard to have an end goal for the sandbox and respond to player choices without continually guiding them toward it. Railroading is the extreme form of such guidance. My preference is to not guide the PC decisions save through the use of the gaming contract as I described above.

Few end goal plans will survive contact with player choices otherwise!

 

[Nagol]

I'm talking about strange things like hanging around in the pub for hours, going to planet X when you need to go to Y or a general "let's not go to the dungeon we expected to go through in this game when we signed up for it".

For many of us, that is acceptable play. For me, the only unacceptable part is the last one. If you signed onto a set of expectations, you should follow through.

 

[Sunseeker]

We can turn this round - if it's your world, and your personal whatevers, why are you playing a group game?

This logic could be applied to any game. Any world.

The reality is that most games with the playstyle that encourages the thief to pick-pocket the king (the sandboxy ones as you call them) do so in a world created by the players and encourage the players to keep creating it.

I think we're using different terms for "world", for me, "world" is the setting, the overall design, where the mountains are, where the kingdoms are, what kind of societies exist.

You seem to be referring to "the world" as the individual actions and events that take place within it around the PCs.

If I'm wrong, then we are indeed at an ideological impasse, and will go no further.

In that situation, if the thief pickpocketed the King, I'd be asking all the other players 'What's the coolest thing that could be in that pouch?' Which is to say 'Where do you want the story to go next?'

That assumes everyone supports his actions. The scenario I presented is one where the others, or some of them, do not. As previously mentioned, I supposed two anti-thetical PCs. a lawless rogue, and a lawful paladin. Supposed the rogue has stolen from the king, by lawful good standards, the PC must return it, and turn in the rogue.

I simply don't see that as beneficial to the game to create, or allow that sort of player-vs-player setup and call it "story". As I said, the game is worthless if all the players are going to do is run it into the ground.

The Dresden Files has players create the city and all the major NPCs. Apocalypse World does as well, hell Dust Devils lets players narrate entire scenes how they want them to go. Sorcerer lets players frame scenes with who they want, where they want. With guards to avoid if that's fun for them. So lots of games allow players to do exactly what you said they can't. It's all out there.

Group designing a game is NOT the same as a single player designing what they think should happen.

So some games aren't about mine, or yours, but ours. When that 'ours' becomes a fight over 'mine' or 'yours' then there's a problem. Who controls the fiction? Everything you've just said is entirely about who controls the fiction. And in your games the answer is clearly 'me' 'my world' 'my game'.

I'm not saying it isn't fun, but it's not the only way to play.

Someone, must, at the end of the day, have final say on what does, or does not happen. Pure democracy is either mob rule or permanent lockdown.