So, if I may ask, what's the core reason you run games? And why do you think this runs against that reason?
I ask, because there seems to me to be a simple modification of the analogy that shifts it from rails to sandbox...
Critical Role Story, rails, and running games
So, if I may ask, what's the core reason you run games? And why do you think this runs against that reason?
I ask, because there seems to me to be a simple modification of the analogy that shifts it from rails to sandbox...
jgsugden
Legend
D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Players run characters that play a role in a story.
You want stories to be interesting. At the same time, you want things for players to be simple.
What BLM describes here is leaving a path before players that doesn't require them to struggle to follow it, but that is interesting. You can achieve it by dropping enough hints that they eventually pick up on the thing you're leaving for them.
This is the approach of most of the Adventure Paths, but it isn't the only way to run a campaign. It is a 'result oriented' approach.
You can also have a 'path oriented' approach that starts off with interesting ideas and then opens up multiple paths that the PCs can pursue. I think of it as the 'journey is more important than the destination' approach. When they select a path, you allow it to go where it makes sense, and then open up new paths from there. As you do so, you make sure some of the paths you open head towards a potential conclusion - and you allow the PCs to choose whether to try to conclude, or whether to go on with more decisions. If they're enjoying the story, they may dig deeper and push to go on. If they're ready to move on to other paths, they might select the 'conclusive' option.
The decision tree is the focus, not the destination.
My personal appraoch to most campaigns: Railroad from levrels 1 to 5. From 5 to 17 it is a sandbox where I present options and let the PCs decide what intrigues them, and give ramifications ot the setting for the items they do not handle (and they can't handle everything). Then from levels 17 to 20 it narrows rapidly back towards a railroad that brings PCs to the completion of their tale. That model works. Those levels 5 to 17 are all about letting them explore and make choices while I drop the lore into their hands that they'll need to find new options, and to prepare for the final railroad finale.
You want stories to be interesting. At the same time, you want things for players to be simple.
What BLM describes here is leaving a path before players that doesn't require them to struggle to follow it, but that is interesting. You can achieve it by dropping enough hints that they eventually pick up on the thing you're leaving for them.
This is the approach of most of the Adventure Paths, but it isn't the only way to run a campaign. It is a 'result oriented' approach.
You can also have a 'path oriented' approach that starts off with interesting ideas and then opens up multiple paths that the PCs can pursue. I think of it as the 'journey is more important than the destination' approach. When they select a path, you allow it to go where it makes sense, and then open up new paths from there. As you do so, you make sure some of the paths you open head towards a potential conclusion - and you allow the PCs to choose whether to try to conclude, or whether to go on with more decisions. If they're enjoying the story, they may dig deeper and push to go on. If they're ready to move on to other paths, they might select the 'conclusive' option.
The decision tree is the focus, not the destination.
My personal appraoch to most campaigns: Railroad from levrels 1 to 5. From 5 to 17 it is a sandbox where I present options and let the PCs decide what intrigues them, and give ramifications ot the setting for the items they do not handle (and they can't handle everything). Then from levels 17 to 20 it narrows rapidly back towards a railroad that brings PCs to the completion of their tale. That model works. Those levels 5 to 17 are all about letting them explore and make choices while I drop the lore into their hands that they'll need to find new options, and to prepare for the final railroad finale.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
The full context of that analogy starts around 1:28:00 in the full video.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
My reaction is to the concept of rails and railroading. For me, RPGs are about player agency. That's the point of them. Anything that violates player agency is bad. Like railroading.
Railroading is the negation of player agency so that the referee's story, plot, module, etc can be preserved.
I am against that.
But, really importantly, that's not actually what Brennan is talking about in that clip. The context is lost and, as always, the context is important. He's using the word rails but not with the typical meaning it's used.
Taking out the problematic word rails and restating his point it would read something like this:
The character wants to solve their problem by taking the most direct path and in the most efficient manner possible. The player wants an interesting and engaging story. The job of the referee is to give them "both" what they want by making the "most direct path" an interesting and engaging story.
Celebrim
Legend
I mean, ok... I guess.
I don't really understand his premises about what he claims 'characters' or 'players' want, but I do feel like he's making an argument here for high illusionism where he tricks the players into believing that they made choices and were creative and really, they went along with the rails. The metaphor appears to be like those in an apparently open world game like 'Journey' or 'Half-Life 2' where when you are first playing the game you feel like you could have done anything and you actually came up with clever things to do, and as long as you stay on the path you felt like you made your own story, but really there is just one story that everyone is supposed to have because everything was on rails.
And I don't really dig that.
What I try to do is more like "Narrow-Broad-Narrow" where I may have "doors" that I am expecting the players to pass through to advance to new parts of the stories, but there really isn't a water sluice or rail between doors and I legitimately don't know how the players will get from one door to the other. I sprinkle a lot of clues around so no one gets lost in the sandbox, but sometimes the players do things I never anticipated. And sometimes they exit out of doors I never expected them to take, and I have to invent a whole new area of the story I didn't anticipate. Occasionally I've had them find doors that let them skip areas that I had planned for and go straight to parts of the story I thought were more remote.
When I put PCs in the sandbox, I don't see this big disconnect between the character's motivation to get to the next door quickly and efficiently and the player's motivation to do that same thing. There are obviously obstacles in the sandbox, but I don't really think of it as my job to ensure the players don't bypass the obstacles because the obstacles aren't really the story anyway. But to the extent that wandering in the sandbox is story, I am perfectly fine with the players adding their own wrinkles and twists and engaging the setting it in ways I never expected.
I don't really understand his premises about what he claims 'characters' or 'players' want, but I do feel like he's making an argument here for high illusionism where he tricks the players into believing that they made choices and were creative and really, they went along with the rails. The metaphor appears to be like those in an apparently open world game like 'Journey' or 'Half-Life 2' where when you are first playing the game you feel like you could have done anything and you actually came up with clever things to do, and as long as you stay on the path you felt like you made your own story, but really there is just one story that everyone is supposed to have because everything was on rails.
And I don't really dig that.
What I try to do is more like "Narrow-Broad-Narrow" where I may have "doors" that I am expecting the players to pass through to advance to new parts of the stories, but there really isn't a water sluice or rail between doors and I legitimately don't know how the players will get from one door to the other. I sprinkle a lot of clues around so no one gets lost in the sandbox, but sometimes the players do things I never anticipated. And sometimes they exit out of doors I never expected them to take, and I have to invent a whole new area of the story I didn't anticipate. Occasionally I've had them find doors that let them skip areas that I had planned for and go straight to parts of the story I thought were more remote.
When I put PCs in the sandbox, I don't see this big disconnect between the character's motivation to get to the next door quickly and efficiently and the player's motivation to do that same thing. There are obviously obstacles in the sandbox, but I don't really think of it as my job to ensure the players don't bypass the obstacles because the obstacles aren't really the story anyway. But to the extent that wandering in the sandbox is story, I am perfectly fine with the players adding their own wrinkles and twists and engaging the setting it in ways I never expected.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Hmm… This seems like great advice for how to run a game in the “Trad” style. But it’s… Kind of the opposite of what I want my games to be like. To roll with the analogy, I don’t want to irrigate a path to direct the water where I want it to go, I want to plant my crops where the river naturally flows.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
The trouble I have with this is, who decides what will make for an interesting and engaging story? In this analogy, seemingly it’s the DM as they’re the one irrigating the flow of the water. And that doesn’t quite sit right with me.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
jgsugden
Legend
Deciding isn't the right word when this works well.
I look at it this way: Movies have actors, directors. So Does D&D.
The lead actors are the players running the main characters. The DM (and perhaps some frelance drop ins) cover the rest of the acting roles.
The direction comes from the DM. They take what the writers give them and find a way to move the story forward in an interesting way. A good director can make a good movie with a bad script. A bad director can ruin the best of scripts and make a horrible movie. In the end, the direction is a very different skill set than what is required to write a good story.
Then who is the writer? Everyone. The writers are the players, the DM, WotC, and everyone that contributed to materials being used at the table. They're TV shows, books, movies and comics that inspire. The material the director / DM turns into a great game come from a lot of sources. I think the head writer is the DM, but they work closely witht he lead writer for each PC - the player - to work out stories for each PC.
Similar Threads
