Oryan77
Adventurer
This topic came from some thoughts I had based on the thread here.
I just didn't want to derail that thread, so I am ranting in my own thread.
I don't mean to say that either is good or bad. But I've played in plenty of sandbox games to recognize that just because you DM a sandbox game does not automatically make your game better than a railroaded game. It also does not mean that just because you run a railroaded game, it is automatically worse than a sandbox game. I understand the extremes of what makes a railroaded game bad (notice I said "extremes") and I definitely notice what can make a sandbox game bad.
What people don't seem to realize is that a good adventure will have a bit of both aspects (sandbox and railroad). But being a railroad does not make it a bad adventure. It's impossible to run a pre-written adventure without it being a railroad. Otherwise, you'll never complete it. Or if you somehow do, it won't make any sense at all when you finish the last chapter. On the flip side, saying that an adventure should be a sandbox doesn't even make sense. The adventure itself has to be a railroad or there is no way to reach a conclusion (the end). Being a sandbox has nothing to do with the adventure. It's up to the DM as to how much he railroads them in the adventure. Even if you try to say that the players should have choices on how to accomplish tasks in the adventure, that's still up to the DM. You can't blame an adventure for that. Even if it's written that object X is the only item that can get PCs past room Y, you still can't put that on the adventure if the DM can't figure out how to handle that before the PCs end up in room Y without object X. Sure, that's the adventure railroading a bit, but what's wrong with that? It's part of the "puzzle" and if the PCs miss it, it's up to the DM to nudge them along until they finally get it or figure out an alternative if they missed a clue.
Some might even say, "Well I'd like to be able to skip around chapters of the adventure rather than be forced to go through them in order." Ok, but what does that matter? The only person that should even be aware of that is the DM. And as a DM, why do I care if the PCs are forced to do things in a particular order? The players shouldn't necessarily realize that they are going in some sort of order within the adventure. The illusion should be that there is no order at all. It shouldn't even be in the players minds.
So I just don't see how a pre-written adventure can even be a sandbox adventure. The closest I can come up with is Dead Gods and Tales from the Infinite Staircase. I have run both, and all they do is provide chapters that can be run in any order and still allow the PCs to make it to the end. But it is recommended for them to at least go through all of the chapters so that when they make it to the end, the ending makes sense to them! But I never felt like that choice was a big benefit for the adventure. It certainly didn't make me enjoy DMing it any more than any other adventure (it's actually more of a hassle for me since I like to prep ahead of time and not knowing where they go first leaves me guessing which chapters to prep first). Players don't honestly care because they don't know that they are "going off track". As far as they are concerned, their actions took them on a linear path regardless of whether you can run the chapters in any order or not.
Rather than focus on if your game is considered sandbox or railroad, focus on how to use both aspects to your advantage and avoid the problems that make both of those "extremes" a bad gaming style. What makes a sandbox game bad is when it is so open-ended, that there are no hooks planned out to nudge players on. The DM just waits for the players to provide a hook rather than the players waiting for a hook to present itself. Then he tries to run with something without having any real thoughts about it.
I've played in several sandbox games that did that and were absolutely boring. I mean, mind numbingly boring. Even when we gave the DM a hook to run with, the games were boring. I don't play D&D as a player so I can create adventures for the DM. My PC might provide a possible adventure for the DM to run with, but I don't want it so open-ended that nothing happens unless I initiate it. I can't imagine those are very long lasting campaigns. I'm sure even a good sandbox game has to have some kind of pre-planned prep going on so there is some kind of structure for an adventure? And once you are using those ideas in the game, you aren't exactly running a sandbox game either. You just hooked them in and set them on the railroad tracks.
Then I know what people mean when they say that railroading is bad. But they have a misconception about that. The extreme, which is what most are referring to I think, is when their PCs actions really have no impact, and their actions are even thwarted most of the time so that the DM doesn't have to deal with any left turns in his plot/adventure. I agree, that's bad. But that in no way makes "railroading" bad. The trick is, to railroad by giving the illusion that you are not railroading. Think of it like a movie. You might be in the middle of it, all on edge and filled with excitement while young Anakin is talking to Jar-Jar, and as soon as you see that boom mic dip into frame, you're pulled out because they just screwed it up and now you're reminded that you are watching a movie. Same thing with an adventure.
I like running pre-written adventures. I don't have time to write entire storylines, NPCs, locations, encounters, and treasures myself. I also find it fun running them. So when I buy one, and prepare it, I expect to be running it. So sure, I don't want the PCs to decide to go spelunking when the adventure requires them to get hooked into going down into the sewers of the city. So rather than dip the boom mic into frame by having a gargantuan red dragon blocking the only way to the cave, I'm going to figure out how to make something just as interesting happen that will get them wanting to go into the sewers and put that spelunking trip on hold (and then I can prep some quick dungeon crawl for the next session now that I know they want that). It's an illusion, I tricked you into changing your minds about spelunking and now yer all curious about these children that keep pickpocketing you and escaping down into the sewers (and those kids aren't even part of the sewer adventure, I just needed a different hook to get you there). There also needs to be some sort of gentleman's agreement with the DM. Yer being a pretty big douche if you realize the DM keeps trying to hook you into a scenario and you purposely keep avoiding it because you want to figure out how to go spelunking that bad at that moment.
At the same time, the DM still needs to be flexible and roll with the punches. I am constantly putting my pre-written adventures on hold because the PCs go off on a tangent. The thing is, I tell them that I will be making it up as we go since I didn't prepare for it. And if they are ok with it possibly being a tad underwhelming since I wasn't prepared, then we run with it. It may take me a few sessions, but I always get them back on track so we can get back to the adventure. Even if it means that I connivingly managed to divert their off-beat path right back onto my railroad tracks. The trick is to keep it from being obvious (don't dip the mic). A lot of the time, even diverting them back on track and making what they unexpectedly did relate to the adventure makes them more intrigued and surprised, and then they go full speed down the railroad tracks without me pushing them.
So, I'm just tired of the whole "railroad is bad, sandbox is good" bandwagon that so many people have been on for so long. I think people are more concerned with using words like "sandbox" to appear as if they are a better DM rather than simply being a better DM.
I just didn't want to derail that thread, so I am ranting in my own thread.
I don't mean to say that either is good or bad. But I've played in plenty of sandbox games to recognize that just because you DM a sandbox game does not automatically make your game better than a railroaded game. It also does not mean that just because you run a railroaded game, it is automatically worse than a sandbox game. I understand the extremes of what makes a railroaded game bad (notice I said "extremes") and I definitely notice what can make a sandbox game bad.
What people don't seem to realize is that a good adventure will have a bit of both aspects (sandbox and railroad). But being a railroad does not make it a bad adventure. It's impossible to run a pre-written adventure without it being a railroad. Otherwise, you'll never complete it. Or if you somehow do, it won't make any sense at all when you finish the last chapter. On the flip side, saying that an adventure should be a sandbox doesn't even make sense. The adventure itself has to be a railroad or there is no way to reach a conclusion (the end). Being a sandbox has nothing to do with the adventure. It's up to the DM as to how much he railroads them in the adventure. Even if you try to say that the players should have choices on how to accomplish tasks in the adventure, that's still up to the DM. You can't blame an adventure for that. Even if it's written that object X is the only item that can get PCs past room Y, you still can't put that on the adventure if the DM can't figure out how to handle that before the PCs end up in room Y without object X. Sure, that's the adventure railroading a bit, but what's wrong with that? It's part of the "puzzle" and if the PCs miss it, it's up to the DM to nudge them along until they finally get it or figure out an alternative if they missed a clue.
Some might even say, "Well I'd like to be able to skip around chapters of the adventure rather than be forced to go through them in order." Ok, but what does that matter? The only person that should even be aware of that is the DM. And as a DM, why do I care if the PCs are forced to do things in a particular order? The players shouldn't necessarily realize that they are going in some sort of order within the adventure. The illusion should be that there is no order at all. It shouldn't even be in the players minds.
So I just don't see how a pre-written adventure can even be a sandbox adventure. The closest I can come up with is Dead Gods and Tales from the Infinite Staircase. I have run both, and all they do is provide chapters that can be run in any order and still allow the PCs to make it to the end. But it is recommended for them to at least go through all of the chapters so that when they make it to the end, the ending makes sense to them! But I never felt like that choice was a big benefit for the adventure. It certainly didn't make me enjoy DMing it any more than any other adventure (it's actually more of a hassle for me since I like to prep ahead of time and not knowing where they go first leaves me guessing which chapters to prep first). Players don't honestly care because they don't know that they are "going off track". As far as they are concerned, their actions took them on a linear path regardless of whether you can run the chapters in any order or not.
Rather than focus on if your game is considered sandbox or railroad, focus on how to use both aspects to your advantage and avoid the problems that make both of those "extremes" a bad gaming style. What makes a sandbox game bad is when it is so open-ended, that there are no hooks planned out to nudge players on. The DM just waits for the players to provide a hook rather than the players waiting for a hook to present itself. Then he tries to run with something without having any real thoughts about it.
I've played in several sandbox games that did that and were absolutely boring. I mean, mind numbingly boring. Even when we gave the DM a hook to run with, the games were boring. I don't play D&D as a player so I can create adventures for the DM. My PC might provide a possible adventure for the DM to run with, but I don't want it so open-ended that nothing happens unless I initiate it. I can't imagine those are very long lasting campaigns. I'm sure even a good sandbox game has to have some kind of pre-planned prep going on so there is some kind of structure for an adventure? And once you are using those ideas in the game, you aren't exactly running a sandbox game either. You just hooked them in and set them on the railroad tracks.
Then I know what people mean when they say that railroading is bad. But they have a misconception about that. The extreme, which is what most are referring to I think, is when their PCs actions really have no impact, and their actions are even thwarted most of the time so that the DM doesn't have to deal with any left turns in his plot/adventure. I agree, that's bad. But that in no way makes "railroading" bad. The trick is, to railroad by giving the illusion that you are not railroading. Think of it like a movie. You might be in the middle of it, all on edge and filled with excitement while young Anakin is talking to Jar-Jar, and as soon as you see that boom mic dip into frame, you're pulled out because they just screwed it up and now you're reminded that you are watching a movie. Same thing with an adventure.
I like running pre-written adventures. I don't have time to write entire storylines, NPCs, locations, encounters, and treasures myself. I also find it fun running them. So when I buy one, and prepare it, I expect to be running it. So sure, I don't want the PCs to decide to go spelunking when the adventure requires them to get hooked into going down into the sewers of the city. So rather than dip the boom mic into frame by having a gargantuan red dragon blocking the only way to the cave, I'm going to figure out how to make something just as interesting happen that will get them wanting to go into the sewers and put that spelunking trip on hold (and then I can prep some quick dungeon crawl for the next session now that I know they want that). It's an illusion, I tricked you into changing your minds about spelunking and now yer all curious about these children that keep pickpocketing you and escaping down into the sewers (and those kids aren't even part of the sewer adventure, I just needed a different hook to get you there). There also needs to be some sort of gentleman's agreement with the DM. Yer being a pretty big douche if you realize the DM keeps trying to hook you into a scenario and you purposely keep avoiding it because you want to figure out how to go spelunking that bad at that moment.
At the same time, the DM still needs to be flexible and roll with the punches. I am constantly putting my pre-written adventures on hold because the PCs go off on a tangent. The thing is, I tell them that I will be making it up as we go since I didn't prepare for it. And if they are ok with it possibly being a tad underwhelming since I wasn't prepared, then we run with it. It may take me a few sessions, but I always get them back on track so we can get back to the adventure. Even if it means that I connivingly managed to divert their off-beat path right back onto my railroad tracks. The trick is to keep it from being obvious (don't dip the mic). A lot of the time, even diverting them back on track and making what they unexpectedly did relate to the adventure makes them more intrigued and surprised, and then they go full speed down the railroad tracks without me pushing them.
So, I'm just tired of the whole "railroad is bad, sandbox is good" bandwagon that so many people have been on for so long. I think people are more concerned with using words like "sandbox" to appear as if they are a better DM rather than simply being a better DM.
