Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5585128" data-attributes="member: 1210">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 &quot;you stop the bad guys&quot;. 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 &quot;there are bad guys&quot;. 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 &quot;save the world&quot; scenarios where it is a foregone conclusion that the world will be saved. Sandbox gms, in my experience, run fewer &quot;save the world&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 5585128, member: 1210"] 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, [i]that is the consequence of the adventure.[/i] It's often a foregone conclusion that the pcs [i]will[/i] oppose the villains, even that they [i]will[/i] 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 [i]because it's quite possible that the world will not be saved.[/i] 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, [i]the pcs are out to save the world[/i]. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification