D&D (2024) DMG 2024: Is The Sandbox Campaign Dead?

[pukunui]

I'd want a hair more if he plans on making the group finish it before going on to something else. If he's not going to allow the group out of that adventure, then he needs to like my friend did and ask us not to deviate. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's something that can be departed from at some point if the group deems it so.

I’ve learned this the hard way, but the way I do it essentially boils down to “I’m going to run this adventure. Make a PC who will want go on that adventure.” (I also make sure my players want to go on the adventure as well.)

I also generally avoid having the PCs start as strangers. Having them already be a team helps a lot with party cohesion.

 

[KYRON45]

DM: (lays out adventure idea they've been working on all week) "The town asks for your help against the stone giants."
Player: "My character isn't interested in doing that."
DM: "Make one that is."

I also don’t allow PCs that “aren’t interested”.
Everyone starts the campaign with some stake in the main premise. Otherwise; why are you even playing?

 

[Oofta]

I think speaking in absolutes, especially in a subjective arena like TTRPGs, is always a mistake. Railroading in D&D, and any other system, is an odd topic. It's unclear how you actually decide what is and isn't a railroad without mind-reading. The definition I see floated a lot is that railroading is any decisions by a DM that "ignore player choice." This leads to some very interesting situations when judging what is and isn't a railroad.

We can look at a series of decisions made by a DM during a fork in the road. One side of the decision is prepped, because the DM is certain, in their mind, of the players' choice. The players than surprise that DM and go the other route. Let's look at these and see if we can spot the problem;

First one. The DM planned for nothing to happen on the expected side of the fork. When the other side is chosen, the DM decides to use that same outcome.

Second one. The prep is an Ogre encounter on the expected side of the fork. The players decide to go the other route because the trees are prettier on that side, and the DM decides that the Ogre encounter happens there as well.

Lastly, the DM has a table of random encounters they planned on using for the expected path. When the players chose the unexpected path, the DM decides to use the random table as well.

Here the issue becomes obvious. You can't decipher a railroad on the information provided. Because you don't know if the DM considered the player choice or not. If the DM considered the choice and came to the decision based on that choice, does it matter that the decision is mirrored for both sides of the fork? If the DM doesn't consider the choice in the decision, it is a railroad regardless of the mirrored outcome. The dice in the third example don't change anything, choosing to roll the dice in spite of player choice is the same as any other decision made in spite of player choice.

This becomes more and more clear the more absurd the hypothetical. Let's say the DM prepped to have nothing happen on either side of the fork. But they see the folly in their ways, and at the table, they decide to have an encounter on the side the players choose to avoid looking like it was "an illusion of choice." They changed their mind not becuase of player choice, but because of fear of being called "bad" for railroading. This attempt to avoid the appearance of railroading is railroading.

We see here that to accurately discern a railroad, we need to know DM intent. Since no one, as far as I know, can read minds, I don't know that we can accurately discern a railroad.

So I wonder, does the demonization of the behavior lead to DM's being put in a catch 22. Where they have to start making ever more arbitrary choices to avoid the appearance of railroading. Not because they are railroading, but because on the surface it looks like they might be. Or will ever hostile and more skeptical players demand to look at the DM notes to "verify" they werent railroading?

I'm glad I trust my DM. Not doing so seems like a massive headache.

I'd define a railroad as the DM forcing the sequence of play and results without considering the words and deeds of the characters or the desires of the players. That's different from a linear game where the DM can still react to the input from the players (directly or via character), although there may be limitations.

In a railroad some things must happen no matter what the choices are. So a railroad would say that the player decide to execute the spy they have discovered regardless of what the players want. Even if they attempt to knock the spy unconscious they actually end up killing them. Perhaps the players set a clever trap or just get lucky and they defeat the BBEG the DM had planned on continuing to use. At the last possible moment a portal appears and they're yanked to safety or some other Deus Machina. A railroad DM will use something like the cut scenes in a video game where the DM describes group getting captured despite any and all attempts to counter the attempt by the players because it's an important part of the plotline they have in mind.

Meanwhile there may be some illusion of choice now and then in a linear campaign and I think many if not most DMs occasionally fall back on using an encounter they had planned just with a minor cosmetic changes no matter how they would describe their campaign.

But I'm saying that in my opinion no DM should set out to run a railroad campaign*. Whether or not the DM is good enough to hide the railroad isn't really relevant, my advice is totally about the approach the DM takes when running a campaign. You can run a linear campaign while still having some flexibility. You can use illusionism sometimes, just don't always rely on it. Let the players have impact on the ongoing story and remember that while you are part of the story that emerges from play, you're only providing half the story and the players fill in the other half.

A linear campaign also requires player buy-in. If I join a game for Tomb of Annihilation, I've implicitly agreed that eventually I'm going to do my best to stop the death curse if I want to play. I accept that there will be certain factors that I have no control over, that I have to follow the cookie crumbs. I just want some flexibility with how I follow those crumbs.

*If the DM doesn't know what they're thinking that's a whole other issue!

 

[Oryzarius]

One important question about a potential railroad: are the PCs allowed to fail?

Years ago, I ran the adventure Plague of Dreams in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. The players made some unwise choices (despite prompting); the bad guys got the drop on them; I left them alive but had the bad guys use the dream sphere as planned and devastate the town. The players felt genuinely guilty... and we carried on with spin-off adventures. I did not move heaven and earth to keep the "intended" plot line in place, no matter what. We were not playing a pre-scripted novel.

 

[Oofta]

One important question about a potential railroad: are the PCs allowed to fail?

Years ago, I ran the adventure Plague of Dreams in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. The players made some unwise choices (despite prompting); the bad guys got the drop on them; I left them alive but had the bad guys use the dream sphere as planned and devastate the town. The players felt genuinely guilty... and we carried on with spin-off adventures. I did not move heaven and earth to keep the "intended" plot line in place, no matter what. We were not playing a pre-scripted novel.

One of the reasons I never do world ending campaigns is because I never assume the PCs are going to win. They always have a chance to come out on top, and usually a pretty good one, but it's not guaranteed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Call of the Netherdeep has a range of outcomes, from total success, to the PCs unleash a terrible evil upon the world.

 

[Lanefan]

I also don’t allow PCs that “aren’t interested”.
Everyone starts the campaign with some stake in the main premise. Otherwise; why are you even playing?

Because my character might be interested in something else? Anything else?

This talk of "your character has to be interested" or "make a PC who wants to go on this adventure" is a big red flag: this DM is willing to hammer player agency whenever it suits in favour of telling the players how to play their characters.

For brand new DMs, sure; as players we should cut 'em all the slack they need. Experienced DMs don't get that slack, however, as (due to being experienced) they should know what player agency means in principle and how best to foster it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because my character might be interested in something else? Anything else?

Then they don’t join the adventure, do they? Meanwhile, the players who do want to buy into the premise have a fun game.

Big red flag is a player who thinks what they want to do is more important than what the group has decided.

 

[Lanefan]

Then they don’t join the adventure, do they? Meanwhile, the players who do want to buy into the premise have a fun game.

Big red flag is a player who thinks what they want to do is more important than what the group has decided.

The group has decided? Or the DM?

I should probably point out that I don't come from a background where a DM says "I'm up for running [specific adventure path X], who wants to play?" but am instead used to a DM saying "I've made a setting involving [general premises X, Y, Z, etc. and setting conceits A, B, C, etc.] and am starting an open-ended campaign in it, who's in?"

Which means, what I'm used to involves much more player-side freedom in what their characters do and-or who those characters are in terms of personality-alignment-etc. right from the start; and this freedom is what I've come to expect as being the base-line default.

 

[KYRON45]

Because my character might be interested in something else? Anything else?

This talk of "your character has to be interested" or "make a PC who wants to go on this adventure" is a big red flag: this DM is willing to hammer player agency whenever it suits in favour of telling the players how to play their characters.

For brand new DMs, sure; as players we should cut 'em all the slack they need. Experienced DMs don't get that slack, however, as (due to being experienced) they should know what player agency means in principle and how best to foster it.

A red flag to who? People who don’t want to cooperate with the rest of the group?