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

[Lanefan]

My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing. Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents. It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened.

It all depends on expectations, really.

A game where the expectaton is to blast through a fair amount of story in a session is likely not going to benefit from an attempt to pick King John's pocketses. (note that such expectations seem to come from the DM more often than the players)

A game where the expectation is that things will proceed at their own pace could very well have a grand old time with King John and his pocketses.

Add to that the possibility that it can take considerable time to resolve and that only one player at the table actually cares, and you can have a very, very boring session.

Every player at the table is gonna care pretty quick if the theft goes wrong*, and though it might take time to resolve nobody will be left out who wants to be involved.

And if the theft goes right it can be resolved as simply as:
1. Thief's player passes a note to DM describing actions
2. DM rolls for success, King's perception, or whatever (or player rolls, depending how the group does such things) to determine outcome
2a. Other PCs maybe roll perception checks to notice what's happening
3. DM passes note back to player describing the purloined loot
4. We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

* - provided, of course, that his-her PC(s) is(are) present at the time.

Lan-"I've stolen from many people, but never a king. I like a challenge"-efan

 

[The Shaman]

Good grief, this thread is moving too fast for me to keep up.

Some interesting discussion, though.

How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"?

The difference, as BotE already noted upthread, is that Mr Gygax's advice is directed at introducing something to the campaign at a later time. My maladroit reply upthread did a poor job of conveying that.

Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?

As others have already noted, a 'sandbox' setting doesn't need to be infinite to be a 'sandbox' - the 'sandbox' is as much about the style of play as it is the setting for play. Frex, when I ran a Traveller game a few years back, I asked the players to remain within the subsector for awhile, giving them something like twenty to thirty charted star systems (and some other stuff not on the regular merchant's nav files) to muck about in however they pleased.

The "wing it" element of running a status quo setting may include going off the edges of the map, but more importantly, in my experience, it's about the setting reacting to what the adventurers are doing. Frex, if the adventurers take sides in a dispute, that should have ramifications; the referee responds in character- and institutionally-appropriate ways to the actions of the adventurers - it may attract new allies, it may earn them new enemies, it may bring them to the attention of the authorities, and so on. For me, that's where much of the "winging it" comes from, and that's what a good deal of my prep is geared toward, such as understanding the complex web of relationships and loyalties between npcs in the setting - if the adventurers tug a strand, who notices, and who's likely to tug back?

To use an actual play example, I mentioned a chevalier npc, a knight of Malta, who was a possible random encounter; on Saturday night, one of his encounters came up - the adventurer, an off-duty King's Musketeer, came upon the aftermath of a duel involving the chevalier. I based the chevalier's reaction to the adventurer on a roll of the dice; the reaction was favorable, so I ruled out an immediate attack - instead, the chevalier decided that the time was right for him and his companion to leave their dead and dying opponents.

Now the chevalier doesn't know the adventurer, but he knows that the musketeer could possibly identify him or his companion, and that dueling is agaisnt the royal edicts. The chevalier may want to know more about this particular musketeer, a tall, stocky fellow with a foreign accent, so I will determine what the chevalier is likely to do next with a little help from Mythic GME.

When I set up this encounter, I knew who the combatants were, why they were dueling, and to whom they are connected. I created the encounter before I knew anything about the adventurer; the first time I saw the character sheet was when we sat down to play. Anything which may transpire subsequent to this encounter will do so because of what the musketeer said and did, informed by what I know of the personalities of the npcs and their connections.

There is no 'story' in my mind, no 'three acts' or 'adventure' to which this is an opening. I can say with certainty however that there will be consequences that stem from this chance meeting because of how the adventurer handled it.

That, to me, is "winging it."

 

[the Jester]

I disagree. What the DM did here was deny an action not dictate one. If a player wanted to attack an orc and there are no orcs in the combat area would you call not letting the character attack orcs railroading as well?

No, but that's a totally different situation. The equivalent of your situation is the thief deciding to pick the king's pocket even though the king isn't there.

Conversely, the equivalent of the thief situation regarding orcs is when the dm wants the players to negotiate with the orcs and won't allow the pcs to attack.

 

[Beginning of the End]

My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing. Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents. It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened.

Laying aside the socially dysfunctional people you say you play with for a moment, let's focus on this: Your entire position relies on the assumption that the GM's plot is more interesting than what the players want to do.

Sure, you can't choose to do X, Y or Z, but, you will progress through things much faster, so, it's not boring.

Progress through what? Your claim relies entirely on the premise that the only thing that matters is ticking off items on the GM's pre-planned checklist. If the checklist doesn't exist your position becomes fairly incoherent.

If we're talking about the speed with which something exciting happens, then the thief pick-pocketing the king has just mainlined that process. No matter how that action resolution turns out, something exciting is about to happen:

- You're going to get something valuable from the king.
- You're going to get involved in an epic chase through the palace.
- You're going to be arrested and thrown in prison and need to concoct your escape.
- You're going to be captured and sentenced to clear out Norworld and make it habitable for civilized folks.

I think the pre-determination that any of this is less interesting or slower paced than "have a chat with the king where he offers you a contract to go clear out Norworld" is to make a rather large presumption that the GM's predetermined plot is the only interesting outcome.

The "wing it" element of running a status quo setting may include going off the edges of the map, but more importantly, in my experience, it's about the setting reacting to what the adventurers are doing. Frex, if the adventurers take sides in a dispute, that should have ramifications; the referee responds in character- and institutionally-appropriate ways to the actions of the adventurers - it may attract new allies, it may earn them new enemies, it may bring them to the attention of the authorities, and so on.

QFT.

Let me give another example of how smart prep in sandbox play means less prep and easier prep than for plotted adventures.

In my current campaign I prepped a "backdrop" in which the Dragon Church would fracture into two competing factions. (A "backdrop" is a sequence of events which the PCs will hear about through rumors, newsheets, and the like.) These events in the Dragon Church were designed to establish certain elements of the church which would factor into a seemingly unrelated sequence of events that one of my PCs had gotten deeply involved with.

When one of the PCs decided to attend a local tournament, I included the order of knighthood associated with the Dragon Church among the orders competing in the tournament. At this point I was able to reuse the heraldry I had designed for the upcoming backdrop of the church schism.

A little while later, this same PC decided they wanted to pursue a knighthood. Recalling the tourney, they chose the order of knighthood associated with the Dragon Church and approached it. Their application to squire themselves was accepted.

Now that the Dragon Church knighthood had been more immediately engaged, I designed three stat blocks: One for the leaders of the knighthood, one for elite members of the knighthood, and one for the weakest members of the knighthood. I also fleshed out my notes for three NPCs (the PC's trainer, the head of the order, and the order's second-in-command) and gave each of them a stat block (elite, leader, leader).

Total prep so-far: Graphic for the heraldry. One page of notes on the church's doctrine. Three stat blocks. One page of schism events each described in 1-2 sentences. 2 pages describing the major NPCs involved.

Here's where the sandbox really kicks it into gear:

(1) The first schism event kicks off with an assassination attempt on the head of the order while he's at the tourney field. This was literally three sentences of prep: "Abanar takes several knights to the tournament field to recruit them in opposing the False Pope. Sir Gemmell, under orders from the False Pope, sends two men to assassinate Abanar. Abanar's knights kill the assassins, they ride to the Godskeep, and are driven back by Gemmell's knights."

But through sheer coincidence the PC squire decided to visit the tourney field that day for completely unrelated reasons. The PC ended up helping to thwart the assassination; rode through the streets with Abanar's knights; helped to assault the Godskeep; and then escaped during the ensuing rout.

(2) The PC was then approached by both factions in the dispute. After several intense roleplaying encounters he chose Abanar's side.

(3) The PC then inadvertently betrayed Abanar's location to Gemmell through another series of accidental coincidences that led him to believe (much to my surprise!) that he was facing a test of loyalty. He and the other PCs then narrowly managed to rescue Abanar. (Used those knight stat blocks again.)

(4) They secured Abanar in an abandoned dungeon complex they had cleared out several levels earlier. (More recycling of material.)

(5) The PC is now serving under Gemmell while secretly spying for Abanar.

So from about 5 pages worth of prep, we've generated several sessions worth of exciting play.

And, ultimately, what's the secret behind the success of this improv? Is it because I'm amazingly awesome?

Nah. It's just (a) prepping raw material with dramatic potential; (b) opportunistically empowering the players; and (c) roleplaying.

I'm not succeeding in the absence of prep. I'm succeeding because I'm prepping the right stuff and not wasting my time on less effective prep (like predetermined plots).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your entire position relies on the assumption that the GM's plot is more interesting than what the players want to do.

QFT.

In a nutshell, this is the prime cause of railroading.


RC

 

[Dausuul]

As a DM, my only problem with the "thief pickpocketing the king" setup is the possibility that it will lead to spending hours on a scenario that the thief wants to do and the other players don't give a damn about. Hence, my solution is geared toward rapidly resolving the thief's initial attempt and giving the other players an opportunity to disavow the thief, leave him to suffer the consequences of his actions, and get on with what they were doing. If they choose not to take it, that's their business.

If the whole party is down with this "Let's steal from the king" scenario, I'll run with it and make up something on the fly. Of course, the scenario I devise will be pretty rough around the edges compared to what I had prepped, with a much higher likelihood of leading to a narrative dead end, but that's the price all players should be ready to pay when they decide to go in a weird unexpected direction.

 

[Hussar]

Beginning of the End - please go back and reread what I wrote. Note, there are numerous caveats in what I put there. Things like, "can" and "possibly" and "could happen".

I think I was pretty even handed in saying that either way can work, depending on the group. I'm certainly not arguing in favour of one or the other.

Admittedly I prefer a more streamlined game. I do. I'm certainly not going to appologise for that. I'm not really interested in watching a train wreck because Bob decides to be a prat. This is a situation that can easily spiral out of control. Bob's character is attacked by the guards, the rest of the party steps in to help Bob, one TPK later and we're back to 1st level.

All because Bob would think it was funny to do something blindingly stupid.

Again, this is only one possible outcome. It might turn into gaming gold and everyone has a fantastic time. Unfortunately, IME, when players start doing this, they're more interested in their own fun than the fun of the group. I don't play with people like that any more, so, it doesn't come up in my groups. (But, thanks for the cheap shot calling my players disfunctional.)

Hey, you don't like this style of gaming. I get that. That's totally fair. But, please, don't mischaracterize what I was saying as some sort of condemnation of playstyle. Both styles have their strengths and drawbacks. I prefer one over the other, but, I'm certainly not saying that the other one is wrong.

Just why it's wrong for me

 

[the Jester]

I'm not really interested in watching a train wreck because Bob decides to be a prat. This is a situation that can easily spiral out of control. Bob's character is attacked by the guards, the rest of the party steps in to help Bob, one TPK later and we're back to 1st level.

All because Bob would think it was funny to do something blindingly stupid.

Again, this is only one possible outcome. It might turn into gaming gold and everyone has a fantastic time. Unfortunately, IME, when players start doing this, they're more interested in their own fun than the fun of the group.

When you have a Bob that is willing to pick the king's pockets, the other pcs are well served by being willing to let Bob hang alone.

That said, yes, you are absolutely right that this kind of thing can derail a campaign if the campaign is story-focused.

I don't play with people like that any more, so, it doesn't come up in my groups.

And this is really the crux of the matter.

If you run a story-focused game, don't play with people that will, by nature of their personality, disrupt the story in order to throw it off-track. If you run a sandbox, don't play with people that will, by nature of their personality, be bored and unengaged if you don't lead them to a story.

Really, whatever your playstyle, you want to have players that enjoy and engage with that style, or else you'll have problems. And that's ignoring the 'problem player' phenomenon completely.

Both styles have their strengths and drawbacks. I prefer one over the other, but, I'm certainly not saying that the other one is wrong.

Just why it's wrong for me

And let's all all keep this in mind- there isn't a right way to play or a wrong way to play, there are only personal preferences and dms that are better at some of the subskills of dming than they are at others.

 

[Umbran]

Your entire position relies on the assumption that the GM's plot is more interesting than what the players want to do.

And, it seems the opposing argument relies on the assumption that what the GM wants to do cannot be more interesting than what the players think of - that the GM's desires don't matter.

The GM is at the table too. Everyone at the table matters. Everyone should get what they want from time to time.

The end result then, is that the group should have some level of compromise, the balance of which should determined by them, not by us back in our armchairs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, it seems the opposing argument relies on the assumption that what the GM wants to do cannot be more interesting than what the players think of - that the GM's desires don't matter.

I don't see this at all.

The opposing argument is that, if what the GM wants to do is more interesting, the players will want to do it, and therefore will not need to be railroaded into doing it.

The problem, IMHO, is thinking of a more linear model as being automatically railroading, or a less linear model as being automatically rowboating (Celebrim's term).

Railroading is an extreme of the linear model, where the choices of the players -- where the players believe that they are able, or should be able, to make these choices -- have been negated by the linear nature of the game.

Rowboating is an extreme of the sandbox model, where the choices of the players -- where the players should have sufficient context to make these choices -- have been negated by the contextually "blank" nature of the setting.

Both are really subsets of the same problem: Negating player choices, which erodes players' involvement (emotional, intellectual, or otherwise) with the game. I don't think that any of us, no matter how linear or sandbox-y we may be, want that.


RC