D&D General Not Railroad, Not Sandbox ... What else is there?

[robconley]

If you can skip parts B or C and go straight from A to D, that's a more open adventure that isn't really linear or railroad. It's also not necessarily sandbox like the Isle of Dread. There's lots of space in-between linear and sandbox games for adventure to fall into, and most adventurers that I've read are in that space.

It been my experience is that the circumstances of the situation govern how it could be dealt with. If the group decides to help Meezap by rescuing his apprentices there is likely no other plausible way to dealing with other than the way you describe. It just make sense as that being the way to get the apprentice back.

And it like that life, somethings are open ended and can be handled in a number of different ways, other there is pretty much only one way to deal with.

Which is why when I write about sandbox, I stress that a key elements not that you have a bunch of choices, but rather you can do anything as if you were really there as your character. That accounts for when folks are playing free agents that are able to decide on a whim to go east or west. And when folks are playing character who are not free agent but are constrained by circumstance like if the party are a members of the military and have to obey orders or suffer harsh consequences.

What makes it a sandbox is the willingness of the referee to let the players trash the premise of the campaign at any team. So for the latter example it could come to the players deciding to desert and embark on a A-Team type career path. Or for the former the players decide to join an organization and put their character in a position where they are subject to orders.

 

[Torranocca]

Yes!


I view the DM more specifically as playing the "setting" of the story, while the players play the "heroes" of the story.

But what that opposition to the desire looks like and why it is opposing it are part of the DMs setting.

There appears to me to be a few different layers of conversation here. I selected the quote above, not to single out the poster, but to use as illustrative, the under current of the issues, I believe, being discussed. I will clearly state now, what follows is “ as I understand it” not a statement of “this is how it is “.
I played my first game of D&D in 1978. What made it so fascinating for myself was the “role” part of RPG and the freedom ( although limited to the scope of the game as presented) to create a character with no complete pre determined attributes that had the freedom to make a multitude of choices on how to act upon the game setting.(as apposed to taking on the role of a commander of forces or game token in a war game/simulation/board game)
The ideas of “sandbox” and “ railroad” settings where not in the lexicon then. All written modules where linear be the very nature of the game as created. The main reason to play in dungeons, was to box the players in and present a clear direction to head towards and to clearly set goals for the adventure. As in:
Go in dungeon- find and defeat adversaries- collect rewards- stay alive- escape with rewards- get better equipment- get better at survival- rinse and repeat. Become a hero by doing heroic things and hopefully survive long enough that the title of hero befit your characters.
A vast majority of created characters did not survive first level and only a moderate few made it past second or third level. This was seen as part of the fun and challenge of the game.
What I have watched and participated in over the last forty four years of RPGs is a series of changes, more about the nature of the players then the changing of editions.

 

[Bagpuss]

I like that a lot, and it helps punish players who sleep after every encounter to regain all their spells

And I mean a real timetable, not the sort of pressing quests you get in CRPGs or even Adventure Paths. Where the NPCs says something along the lines of "You must hurry, the PLOT EVENT is within the hour" then you go off and do a dozen side missions, rest for a night and come back just in time for the PLOT EVENT to happen. God they are annoying.

Unfortunately they are also annoying when you miss the event because you've been conditioned by countless CRPGs to assume everything will wait for you.

 

[Torranocca]

And I mean a real timetable, not the sort of pressing quests you get in CRPGs or even Adventure Paths. Where the NPCs says something along the lines of "You must hurry, the PLOT EVENT is within the hour" then you go off and do a dozen side missions, rest for a night and come back just in time for the PLOT EVENT to happen. God they are annoying.

Unfortunately they are also annoying when you miss the event because you've been conditioned by countless CRPGs to assume everything will wait for you.

This! The last thing you have written, points to directly where I am leaning in this conversation
This is why the Railroad/ Sandbox dichotomy is sort of a fabricated polarity that doesn’t truest exist. So much of what these Discussions boil down to is the use of terms and lack of precision or common interpretation.
It was common in the past that what all of you are calling a “ Railroad” plot was called commonly a”Train” plot. This denoted a linear path to be followed with a distinct goal to be achieved ( or failing to achieve) at the end.
Being on a more linear path as in a train plot has an entirely different connotation then railroad, because being railroaded has a distinct negative connotation and indeed an entirely distinctly different meaning to it.
What is being called a sandbox, like a lot of modern discussion terms is a computer game concept a little bit shoe horned into tabletop gaming terms. The total freedom as in the idea of a “sandbox game”for a player to take their in game characters and to do whatever , whenever and however they please at any given moment is an illusionary and ultimately counter productive idea to what a RPG is.

 

[S'mon]

The total freedom as in the idea of a “sandbox game”for a player to take their in game characters and to do whatever , whenever and however they please at any given moment is an illusionary and ultimately counter productive idea to what a RPG is.

Why's that? I don't necessarily disagree, mind you.

 

[Torranocca]

Why's that? I don't necessarily disagree, mind you.

Because, although a player can desire for and direct their character to do exactly what they want them to. This is not conducive to a game designed around teamwork and group goal completion. Even if one were playing a game with only one player and a DM, it would still not work within the structure of a game. That total free form freedom only works for an individual within their own imagination. No game needed.

 

[Torranocca]

Why's that? I don't necessarily disagree, mind you.

Let me provide you with an easy to digest example. So let me start by stating I have a first rule to DMing that I share with my players. I will never tell a player “no, you cannot have your character try something. However if you believe what you’re about to try it’s more than likely going to lead to your characters immediate death,it’s probably because it is. In other words I don’t say no you can’t do that.
Now a good example of this in real game action.
Player created a lawful good paladin character and almost immediately became fixated on the idea of obtaining a holy avenger sword. Not too surprisingly, it is unwise to hand a first level character that sort of a powerful item to start off with. The player character then tried to obtain one through petitioning the High Cleric of the church he belonged to. He was told he could earn such a blessed item through accumulated merit and not something the church could buy for him, he would have to earn it. He was also told he would have to have a Mastercrafted sword to be able to receive the blessings and rituals that create a Holy Avenger.(sounds like a cool quest, yes?)
Now here’s actually what the player did:
First the character took all of their starting money, which wasn’t very much of couse,to the local swordsmith and commissioned a mastercrafted sword using his starter money as a down payment. The character was told by the weapon Smith that he needed three weeks to construct the sword.
The player/ character then convinced the rest of the party to stall for three weeks (in game time not real time, while lying to them why they were waiting )until the sword was finished. Made no attempt to earn the money needed to pay for said sword, because as you can imagine it was ridiculously expensive for a first level character to afford.
Lawful Good Palidin then sneaks to the WeaponSmith’s shop in the middle of the night, tries to break in, alerts the Weapon Smiths guard dog, kills said guard dog and wakes up half the neighborhood with the commotion. LG Palidin then breaks into the shop and steals the sword he had commissioned. The weapon Smith then sends his son to run out and get the night watch……..wait for it ….:can you see what’s coming?
The night watch confront the paladin while he’s walking down the street with the stolen sword in hand and said lawful good paladin immediately attacks them, when they try to arrest him.
The rest of the story should be pretty obvious, paladin kills a couple guards gets subdued, arrested ,tried, stripped of his title and hung.
You may be surprised to learn that the player of this character was completely shocked by the outcome and begged the rest of the party to rescue his character. Meanwhile, the rest of his parties players are left scratching their heads as to why he would’ve done any of these things.
Now you could easily blame me as the DM for not telling the player they shouldn’t or couldn’t do these things, but sadly this is only one example of many times I have seen what player characters will do when you give them a “ sandbox “to play in.
This is not an example of “ look at this dumb/ bad role player “ he was neither. He just believed in the fallacy that the player is number one and the game is all about them and what they want.

 

[payn]

Thats doesnt sound like a sandbox problem to me...

 

[Torranocca]

Thats doesnt sound like a sandbox problem to me...

It is actually one of many issues with” sandbox” play as described, on these threads.
I don’t see it as a problem per say, others may enjoy such play. I just fail to see how it is the game of D&D. It may be a game mind you, I am not insinuating that others are not playing the game. Just missing the spirit and intent of the game play as designed.

 

[payn]

It is actually one of many issues with” sandbox” play as described, on these threads.

By you, perhaps, but I have never seen anyone else describe play like this as sandbox play.

I don’t see it as a problem per say, others may enjoy such play. I just fail to see how it is the game of D&D. It may be a game mind you, I am not insinuating that others are not playing the game. Just missing the spirit and intent of the game play as designed.

Sounds like naked power gaming which is common here and all over the web. I believe most GMs will discourage this type of play rather than arms race with them.