DM Issues: Railroading

[Janx]

I disagree very strongly, but then you knew that already.

You can run a sandbox in an setting where the bad guy armies are conquering the world. If the PCs don't stop them, the world gets conquered. As long as the DM is ready to have the PCs do whatever they want, it's a sandbox.

From the other side of the GM screen, that sounds like a punishment-stick.

Players goals tend to align with keeping the status quo or improving it. So if the village was nice and peaceful, they will tend to fight the disruptions to that, and repair it if they can.

If they see an opportunity to improve it (builder mentality), they'll do that. all of this is usually as a course of improving their own situation. By helping the village fend off orcs, they get respect and perks. They may even get power and command over the region.

Psychologically then, when a big war erupts, you are disrupting the status quo and threatening what they are building. The probability that they will keep walking back and forth to the dungeon to the village to sell their loot is low. Because if they ignore the war, the village will be destroyed.

Now this assessment can't apply to all players. But to some, such as myself, this is what we'll see, despite the GM thinking he has a sandbox.

When you have a significant Consequence about to happen, while the GM may think the players have a choice, the players have no Choice but to take action towards that problem, rather than some other goal they wanted to pursue.

Disagree? At 5PM today, a gang of hoodlums is going to go to your house and rape, rob, and kill your family. You are free to stay late at the office, or go solve the problem.

You have some choices on how to solve the problem (call the cops, get your family out by 4PM, be there with a gun, etc.) But no man is going to rationally ignore the Threat and work late. That is a non-Choice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree very strongly, but then you knew that already.

You can run a sandbox in an setting where the bad guy armies are conquering the world. If the PCs don't stop them, the world gets conquered. As long as the DM is ready to have the PCs do whatever they want, it's a sandbox.

They could also join the badguys, or try to profit from the ensuing conflict. I think it depends on the players and the party. My most memorable campaigns have been of the pirate crew variety, where the party isn't necessarily out to save the world or always help those in need.

 

[chaochou]

If your GM can balance the offer of a deteriorating war situation against the freedom and benefits of your downtime you might find yourself with significant, and possibly memorable, decisions to make.

Disagree? At 5PM today, a gang of hoodlums is going to go to your house and rape, rob, and kill your family. You are free to stay late at the office, or go solve the problem.

What you've done, imo, is deliberately unbalance the choices for the sake of argument.

At 5pm your boss comes in saying the sales figures look great and he needs a report for the board by 8am tomorrow. It could be the key to that promotion you've been angling for. But tonight is your son's big football game. Do you write the report or go to the game?

The commander comes to see you. A town on the edge of the kingdom is under threat from the enemy. It's your wife's home town. Do you ride out to save it or let it fall and build your magic weapon? Do you fight for your wife or power up for later?

I'd say both of those offer significant choices which say valuable and interesting things about the character. And ask the player to accept the consequences of their actions.

It's not a playstyle for everyone - but it can work far more effectively than your 'no choice' example gives it credit for.

 

[the Jester]

See, this is where definitions start getting tricky. If you have a timeline for Keep on the Borderlands, and the players not engaging in that timeline results in strong, negative consequences for the characters, there's not so much difference with an outright railroad.

I disagree and kind of think you're mis-characterizing this (unintentionally).

A sandbox is not consequence-free; but there is typically a wider range of possible consequences than in a railroad. A railroad's consequences are usually written or planned out in advance; a sandbox' vary depending on the nature of the pcs' engagement with the adventure.

Railroads often boil down to "you stop the bad guys". That's not just the basic plot, that is the consequence of the adventure. It's often a foregone conclusion that the pcs will oppose the villains, even that they will be victorious.

A sandbox approach instead acknowledges that "there are bad guys". That's the basic situation; but there is no foregone conclusion. Maybe the pcs oppose the bad guys; maybe they ally with them or go to work for them; maybe they ignore them. Maybe the pcs slay the bad guys; maybe the bad guys slay the pcs; maybe the pcs leave the territory that the bad guys have sway over; maybe the pcs never get involved with the bad guys at all.

Railroad gms run "save the world" scenarios where it is a foregone conclusion that the world will be saved. Sandbox gms, in my experience, run fewer "save the world" scenarios because it's quite possible that the world will not be saved.

A sandbox often has a stronger devotion to following the repercussions of pcs' actions than a railroad. The key is choice of engagement. In a railroad 'save the world' campaign, the pcs are out to save the world. In a sandbox 'the world is threatened' campaign, it is up to the pcs to decide what they are doing.

There is no punishment for joining the bad guys, other than the consequences of having done so. There is no punishment for ignoring the 'plot' other than the natural consequences of it. There are never arbitrary armies of draconians pushing you to the dm's chosen path.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'll strongly disagree with that, Janx. That's a big choice. And, it'll be obvious for most people, but not all people in a D&D-like game.

If I don't go to my house, and my family dies, and we continue to play, then it's not railroading. It's still a sandbox. Just because it's a sandbox, it does not mean the world does not spin, the setting does not evolve, and consequences are not applied to actions.

I can "deal" with the threat, if I feel I must, by not going. I can move my family, or have them move. I can go myself, or hire others to protect them. I can ignore them completely. I can join in. If the action is going to take place, and I am not purposefully being herded toward a decision, it's not railroading, in my opinion. It's still a sandbox.

However, when running a sandbox game, there's one simple thing to keep in mind: everyone has motivations for everything they do. Period. Even crazy hermits have motivations, even if they aren't not logical. So, if you did something that caused this attack, then it's just the consequences of actions you performed in a sandbox world. If it's someone doing this to get you out of the way while the BBEG does his evil plan (ie, Superman has to stop a missile or save Lois Lane), then it's just another action taking place in the sandbox world.

But I've discussed this at length already in another thread. As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

I disagree and kind of think you're mis-characterizing this (unintentionally).

A sandbox is not consequence-free; but there is typically a wider range of possible consequences than in a railroad. A railroad's consequences are usually written or planned out in advance; a sandbox' vary depending on the nature of the pcs' engagement with the adventure.

Railroads often boil down to "you stop the bad guys". That's not just the basic plot, that is the consequence of the adventure. It's often a foregone conclusion that the pcs will oppose the villains, even that they will be victorious.

A sandbox approach instead acknowledges that "there are bad guys". That's the basic situation; but there is no foregone conclusion. Maybe the pcs oppose the bad guys; maybe they ally with them or go to work for them; maybe they ignore them. Maybe the pcs slay the bad guys; maybe the bad guys slay the pcs; maybe the pcs leave the territory that the bad guys have sway over; maybe the pcs never get involved with the bad guys at all.

Railroad gms run "save the world" scenarios where it is a foregone conclusion that the world will be saved. Sandbox gms, in my experience, run fewer "save the world" scenarios because it's quite possible that the world will not be saved.

A sandbox often has a stronger devotion to following the repercussions of pcs' actions than a railroad. The key is choice of engagement. In a railroad 'save the world' campaign, the pcs are out to save the world. In a sandbox 'the world is threatened' campaign, it is up to the pcs to decide what they are doing.

There is no punishment for joining the bad guys, other than the consequences of having done so. There is no punishment for ignoring the 'plot' other than the natural consequences of it. There are never arbitrary armies of draconians pushing you to the dm's chosen path.

I'm in the middle of running a save-the-world scenario right now. The PCs discovered it with about 2 years time remaining and no idea how to stymie it. They worked on personal goals for the first year or so. They're down to 7 months, recognise they're at 7 months with limited understanding of how to proceed and are debating taking a month to deal with some secondary issues (there is a time and material cost to leveling in the campaign). I hope they succeed, but I'm beginning to think they won't.

 

[S'mon]

I'll strongly disagree with that, Janx. That's a big choice. And, it'll be obvious for most people, but not all people in a D&D-like game.

If I don't go to my house, and my family dies, and we continue to play, then it's not railroading. It's still a sandbox. Just because it's a sandbox, it does not mean the world does not spin, the setting does not evolve, and consequences are not applied to actions.

I can "deal" with the threat, if I feel I must, by not going. I can move my family, or have them move. I can go myself, or hire others to protect them. I can ignore them completely. I can join in. If the action is going to take place, and I am not purposefully being herded toward a decision, it's not railroading, in my opinion. It's still a sandbox.

However, when running a sandbox game, there's one simple thing to keep in mind: everyone has motivations for everything they do. Period. Even crazy hermits have motivations, even if they aren't not logical. So, if you did something that caused this attack, then it's just the consequences of actions you performed in a sandbox world. If it's someone doing this to get you out of the way while the BBEG does his evil plan (ie, Superman has to stop a missile or save Lois Lane), then it's just another action taking place in the sandbox world.

But I've discussed this at length already in another thread. As always, play what you like

Well said, I got the must spread XP notice.

A player or PC may feel they have no real choice in a matter because of their commitments. They may feel it's a 'punishment stick' if they feel they have to take time to defend what they built up. It is not a Railroad though. A Railroad is where the DM is not prepared to let the PCs make another choice.

Eg you could run a Dragonlance sandbox where the PCs were free to help the Dragonarmies conquer Krynn, or become scavangers, or just try to survive. LG PCs might feel forced to oppose the Dragonarmies, but if the DM is ok either way it's not a Railroad.

Railroading is a DM-side concept, not a player-side concept, IMO. Because it is a DMing technique, not a feeling that players or PCs have. IRL I felt I had to go to work today and mark these damn Contract Law papers on my desk. Nasty things will happen if I don't. But I am not being 'railroaded' into marking them!

 

[pawsplay]

Disagree? At 5PM today, a gang of hoodlums is going to go to your house and rape, rob, and kill your family. You are free to stay late at the office, or go solve the problem.

How do I know this? Do I have precognition? If so, that could be a very interesting scenario.

 

[Hussar]

The difference can be night-and-day. In one scenario, the players identify strongly with the situation faced by their PCs. In the other, they recognize they are being asked to accept the DM's power play. Now, there are situations where the two are indistinguishable (convenient ruby-eating titan blocks the way), but only at first glance. Upon inspection, there is a huge difference between a situation which is merely limiting (and limitations add interest) versus one which is oppressive (boring, except insofar as it provokes frustration). It is a curious paradox that a GM creates adventures by subtracting, and can suck the life out of them by adding, but I believe it. The GM is not the author of the story. Period.

The GM may not be the author of the end of the story, but, his fingerprints are certainly all over the manuscript.

The GM sets up a scenerio on a certain time frame - a completely linear plot line unless the PC's can time travel - but that doesn't make it a railroad.

See, the problem I'm seeing here is people are contrasting the idea of sandbox with railroad. That's a false comparison. The opposite of sandbox is linear, not railroad. You can railroad just as easily in a sandbox as in a linear campaign.

Do X or bad things will happen to your character might not be forcing the players to act in a certain way, but, it's certainly pushing them in that direction. To me, there's no difference between "You can choose not to do X, but if you do, this shopping list of bad things will happen" and "Just do it".

Because, IMO, at the end of the day, the players will do it because it's pretty obvious that's what the GM wants you to do.

To me, saying, "Well, you don't HAVE to do X, but, if you don't, you get punished" is railroading. Find the Disks of Mishakal or the invading dragon armies will simply come in larger and larger waves until you die may be totally justifiable from an in game perspective, but, it's totally a railroad.

 

[Doug McCrae]

When I think of sandbox, I think of something like the West Marches campaign or The Vault of Larin Karr. The bad guys are disunited, localised and largely static. The setting as a whole is also static. There are no impending plots to take over or destroy the world. There is no great pressure on the PCs to choose one adventure location over another. This lack of pressure increases player freedom.

The Dragonlance setting otoh, was intended for adventure path play. It has powerful, unified opposition, and impending threats to the safety of all the PCs hold dear. It's a high pressure setting and, as such, I find it difficult to think of a game with such a setting as a sandbox.