D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[The Firebird]

I mean, all games then have a point where they become railroads. I once again refer to the idea of deciding we want to leave your world on a Spelljammer and visit Faerun. If there are no Spelljamming vessels on your world (regardless of your rationale) for us to go to Faerun on, are we not on a railroad (even if it's a rather large one)?

That's part of the problem with defining railroad strictly by DM opposition to player choice. At some point the DM says something is impossible and the train tracks appear under foot.

Making the game world respond realistically to player choice is not railroading. Railroading is grating as a player because it is clear the world isn't responding realistically.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, all games then have a point where they become railroads. I once again refer to the idea of deciding we want to leave your world on a Spelljammer and visit Faerun. If there are no Spelljamming vessels on your world (regardless of your rationale) for us to go to Faerun on, are we not on a railroad (even if it's a rather large one)?

That's part of the problem with defining railroad strictly by DM opposition to player choice. At some point the DM says something is impossible and the train tracks appear under foot.

The GM saying something is impossible for some reason related to the setting, isn't a railroad. And even the players going on an adventure the GM has planned that is very linear, in my view isn't a railroad, if the players are opting into that. To me railroads are things like the players avoid going in a suspicious looking house a long the road, but then the GM has them get lost and end up back at the house, or keeps throwing them encounters and storms until they throw up their hands and go in the house. Now there could be a logical in setting explanation for some of this that wouldn't make it a railroad. But assuming that isn't the case, and the GM just wants the PCs to go to the damnend house, I'd say that is a railroad. And that is obviously a stark version of it, there are smaller scale ways to railroad, and other ways players can feel like they are locked on a track. But the crucial thing here is if the GM is ad libbing and letting us go to whatever town we want, letting us take whatever actions we want, the fact that the GM is the one deciding what is there, isn't a railroad in my mind (it could be if he had an adventure all along and was letting us think we are making choices when we are not really, but that is illusionism)

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's part of the problem with defining railroad strictly by DM opposition to player choice. At some point the DM says something is impossible and the train tracks appear under foot.

We could get into this. I think the issue I have with some definitions, is they get used as a way of making an argument like "All sandboxes are really just railroads". And in doing that they basically argue that pretty much most adventure structures are really just railroads. So for example I don't think an AP is a railroad. I think it can be one, as can a mystery or even a sandbox, but it is boils down to the players sense of control over their decisions, how much control they actually have, and what actions the GM may be taking behind the screen to promote agency or hinder it

 

[Micah Sweet]

You did not use those words. You have--now repeatedly--argued that that standard has nothing in common, at all, with what people mean when they say "sandbox." This is functionally identical to writing it off as a wonky ridiculous thing that has no bearing on the present conversation.

Having different definitions for a term does not mean either is ridiculous, but it does mean it can be difficult to have a conversation sometimes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How is this functionally equivalent to a railroad. He isn't setting down what actins the NPC should take in advance. He is basing his decision in that moment, in reaction to the players, based on what he knows about the NPC. That isn't a railroad. He is describing an organic process, where the players actions matter a great deal and he hasn't planned out stuff in advance. He is responding to the players, not railroading them

Yup. Sounds a lot like how people respond to others in real life.

 

[Remathilis]

We could get into this. I think the issue I have with some definitions, is they get used as a way of making an argument like "All sandboxes are really just railroads". And in doing that they basically argue that pretty much most adventure structures are really just railroads. So for example I don't think an AP is a railroad. I think it can be one, as can a mystery or even a sandbox, but it is boils down to the players sense of control over their decisions, how much control they actually have, and what actions the GM may be taking behind the screen to promote agency or hinder it

That was what I was getting at. That simplicitc notion that railroad = freedom and linear = no freedom is a false one that gets trotted out in these arguments.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That was what I was getting at. That simplicitc notion that railroad = freedom and linear = no freedom is a false one that gets trotted out in these arguments.

I don't think linear equals no freedom

 

[mamba]

I mean, all games then have a point where they become railroads. I once again refer to the idea of deciding we want to leave your world on a Spelljammer and visit Faerun. If there are no Spelljamming vessels on your world (regardless of your rationale) for us to go to Faerun on, are we not on a railroad (even if it's a rather large one)?

no, that means one option was taken from you, not that you only have one option you actually can take

 

[robertsconley]

Now this I strongly disagree with. The idea that proceeduraly generated conted will be inconsistent (or more inconsistent than any other RPG campaign) is something I don't find true.

My experience has been different. However, it is not a question of which experience is more relevant. It's about understanding our respective circumstances and why we make the creative choices we do.

An important consideration is how long the referee plans to use the setting that is the focus of the sandbox campaign. If just for the one campaign, then inconsistencies are less likely to matter. This also means that ease of prep is a primary consideration, which makes the use heavy use of procedural generation a wise choice.

However, for someone like me who uses the same fantasy setting across multiple campaigns, consistency is crucial. So I use procedural generation differently compared to someone solely concerned with ease of prep.

Proper note keeping solves that pretty well, same as any other campaign.

I addressed this. It's not a problem if the referee uses procedural generation as a basis for preparation. Using notes to maintain consistency is a form of preparation.

When the referee or player (in the case of a solo RPG) is not involved and the result is accepted 'as is'; that is when inconsistency issues arise.

This product, released in the 1990s, is an example of this happening.

Even with the player or referee actively involved, such as with the use of notes, the use of procedural generation in a process where you only generate what you need when you need it has additional consequences. It is straightforward to keep new items consistent with what has already been established. Often, retcons are needed to keep older items consistent with the information that new elements have revealed.

How much of a problem is this? It depends on the nature of the setting and the complexity of the circumstances. But generate enough detail over time, and then retcons are inevitable. Players who play in successive campaigns in the same setting will notice, and some will care about the resulting inconsistency.

An example is my Majestic Wilderlands. It originally started out as Judges Guild, Wilderlands of High Fantasy. Unlike most published settings, it had a wealth of local detail but not much overview material like setting history or regional overviews. As a resul,t most referee using the Wilderlands came up with their own histories and their own regional overviews.

For me, around 1988, after a dozen campaigns using the Wilderland, my original maps were falling apart. So I decided to redraw the maps by hand using a homemade light table and large sheets of hex paper. In addition, I had a lot of additional details on culture, religion, and history, along with tweaks to the geography. I decided that in order to keep things consistent, I wouldn't redraw the original but a new version that reflects these changes. In essence, retconning the geography to better fit how I ran my Wilderlands campaign in the late 80s.

And it is no more limiting than having preset scenarios a la a DM curated setting.

Nothing is a free lunch. All creative choices have consequences, including the ones I use. These consequences are often not about whether there is player agency, but how player agency works out.

Ultimately, it's about matching the prep method to the campaign's goals and ensuring the players’ experience stays consistent with the world as it unfolds.

 

[robertsconley]

It's a fiction. All the likelihoods have to be decided by someone. How does the GM decide whether or not some task attempted by a PC, as declared by their player, is uncertain in its outcome? Intuition? Extrapolation (from what)? Because they think it will be more fun if the dice are rolled here and now? Something else?

It is based on the character's description and the setting details relevant to the circumstances under which the ruling is needed. The system plays a role in this as a useful aid to make the adjudication process easier and more consistent. However, it is not a definitive reference as to what players can do as their characters. That is found in the description of the setting and its elements.

Fairness and consistency with this approach come from staying true to the setting’s established facts and how the characters fit into it.

The system is an aide that provides procedures for resolving uncertainty, but the world logic, geography, cultures, factions, and character capabilities define what actions are possible and how outcomes make sense.

It's not arbitrary; it's grounded in the details of the setting.