Search results

From this thread and from many others before it, GMs who espouse a traditional sandbox style (at least the ones I've seen discuss it on this board) almost take pride in NEVER being influenced by the players and would consider that a heavy negative to be strenuously avoided.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you, then, consider the traditional sandbox style (where the DM authors everything and sets all the stakes) as pretty railroady?

Not @UngainlyTitan but, in answer, see where that leads. The players are often surprising, they're on the ropes but pull out the clutch win. Or, if possible, they flee and regroup, with the consequences of that hopefully being interesting. Or there's a TPK/near TPK; the players bring in new...

I've found a combination like Phandelver works well. Found that most players despise the "no bread crumbs" approach and most DMs don't run that style well regardless.

Lost Mines uses a pretty classic narrow-wide-narrow design. The beginning is almost completely linear, pushing the PCs through the first two encounters. Then it widens out to a sandboxy area where the PCs have lots of room to maneuver and lots of choices as to where to go etc. Then as they...

Interesting. I would think a "true" sandbox is railroad proof, there would be absolutely no need for any kind of railroading. But if the DM wants you to think it's a sandbox, doesn't have enough prepared, doesn't randomize, and doesn't want the group to realize this? Yeah, I can see some...

Logical consequences resulting from the players actions are not railroading! For example, the PCs looting a gem they later find out is cursed. That's a consequence of their own actions. The NPC stating an outcome they want is not railroading, it's a request/demand etc. Just because the...

Right, hopefully everyone is engaging in good faith and with the fun of the group in mind. If not, that's a different issue.

The DM, if he can, can run a completely different adventure. And if the the players still aren't engaging, then maybe the group just isn't a fit - that happens. Hopefully everyone involved is approaching the game in good faith. If not, that's a different issue.

No, option C is to not do the adventure that's planned because it's not hitting with the players. But not having a game at all IS better than the players being forced into one they don't actually want.

Option C is the players rejecting the laid out path and either going back or simply refusing to move forward, so the DM either runs something else (prepared or otherwise) or cedes to someone else to run (something else). It happens when the players despite prior buy-in, don't like the...

I've met and played under plenty of bad DMs. But not in the way you describe (just casual etc.). As I said, my experience is the complete opposite. From what I've seen, jerks don't bother asking questions. Most couldn't care less about anything except their own amusement and don't need to. For...

Yes it's the "only" difference. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

It's actually pretty straightforward. Linear means One(ish) direction to go. An adventure is linear when the PCs only have 1 specific path from start to completion (there may be branches on the path, even some divergent options but it still goes to the same place). So as has been said A-B-C-D...

I guess the writers/designers decided they wanted to throw in a combat encounter and a Quasi chase sequence? The goal was clearly to make the players feel like they had to escape, but without starting them at the obvious easy point to do so.

I've been gaming a LONG time and met many, many DMs. Home game, conventions, in person, online. Many different DMs. This is a REALLY odd take, let's just leave it at that. Interesting, I actually think some of those would attract jerk players. Not asking questions, for example. Jerks don't...

I have to say, I have NEVER met a DM with this attitude. Sure some are more relaxed or laid back than others. Many, experienced or new, are not that great or not nearly as great as they think they are. But ones that think the game is silly and a waste of time? You don't continue to DM with that...

To me, that's the HUGE difference. If the players come in eyes open (player buy-in) then "railroading" and all the negative connotations that apply, don't attach. The players choices are severely constrained, but everyone is aware of this and simply choosing to move forward.

I have long wanted to do a campaign - where it starts at "the end." Namely, first session is the group at 20th level and they get brutally wiped out by whatever the big threat is, as it completely overwhelms them (tricky, but possible to a 20th level party). The scene (after the wipeout) then...

These are clear cases of the player being a jerk and trying to have fun at the expense of everyone else at the table. It is an out of game problem and needs to be discussed and treated as such. This seems straightforward. The action itself is not invalid (charming someone immune etc.), it just...