Do you run or play in a Sandbox or Linear game

[john112364]

In my opinion, I don't think it's possible to run a completely linear game without taking away the players choices and ruining the fun. I have played with GMs who had a fit ant time you tried to do something that was not planned for. For example, I once played in a game that got completely derailed because we (the players) refused to take the mission that was obviously a set up and instead we wanted to take, what we thought was a second plot hook, and go with it. Turns out he was not prepared for the second senario and got po'd and refused to run that game again. A good linear game has to allow for players to do the unexpected. There are always ways to draw the players back to your railroad without hitting your players over the head with a railroad spike.

On the other hand I have played in a game that was most definitely a very sandboxy game. This DM had an idea of what was going on in the world and was very good at improvising. No matter what you decided to do, he always seemed to be able to make up an adventure on the fly and make it seem planned. He was a very prepared DM, which is a must for a sandbox game. To this day, I can't match his ability to make up an adventure on the fly.

For me, I currently run a mostly linear game, but my damn players are always doing this I'm not expecting! ( They definitely keep me on my toes.) I'm also blessed with players who don't go out of their way to disrupt the game too much, so they don't mind some gentle nudging to get them back on track.

In the past, when I had more time, I ran a slightly more sandbox/linear hybrid where the players would decide which train to ride and I would then make up the railroad for them. Sometimes player can come up with some very interesting plot hooks on thier own, and if you pay attention to them you not only make the game more intersting, you make it more fun for the players.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hi all, a certain amount of disagreement is natural in this conversation, but I'd like to request that we don't fall into arguments. I'd hate to see that happen, especially if it arises from accidental misreadings of what others are saying.

(not addressing anyone in particular here, BTW)

Thanks.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think the options in the poll are a bit to limited. I run mostly linear but there are elements of sandbox in it. In that so far the players have gone through Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire Labyrinth with an interlude and in the case of Thunderspire not for any of the plot hooks in the modules. In fact because of a character background and the interlude they went to Thunderspire to find info on the Pyramid of Shadows.

They have not explored every room in either complex so far and as a result of player background things in the Pyramid will be different that written. I will not be changing the statblock but i will be reskinning some of the factions and the faction leader motivations.

So I don't think that a good campaign can be either one but that does not preclude their utility as descriptors. The thing is as DM I have run both. I could never seem me doing a sandbox game in 3.5 but i did it in basic and WHFRP and I could see myself doing it again in 4e. In fact when I finally get a decent boradband provider (one where I can run maptools on) I could see myslelf doing an online episodic campaign that would be more sandbox than linear though I will be ripping much of the encounters and episodes from published material.

 

[Desdichado]

Sandbox and railroads are endpoints on a spectrum. Theoretical endpoints. I don't know where the idea came from (recently) that such an outlier situation could possibly make for a good gaming experience. We've known, as a collective consciousness, that railroading isn't fun for a long time. I can't wait until we get around to the point where we realize that a sandbox isn't either, and that a good game is somewhere else on the spectrum besides the literal endpoint.

 

[Garmorn]

Sandbox and railroads are endpoints on a spectrum. Theoretical endpoints. I don't know where the idea came from (recently) that such an outlier situation could possibly make for a good gaming experience. We've known, as a collective consciousness, that railroading isn't fun for a long time. I can't wait until we get around to the point where we realize that a sandbox isn't either, and that a good game is somewhere else on the spectrum besides the literal endpoint.

And that point will vary due to DM and Players: style, skills, likes/dislikes and the system used (among other things).

 

[pawsplay]

And that point will vary due to DM and Players: style, skills, likes/dislikes and the system used (among other things).

Exactly. I'm more of a sandboxer, but my group meets infrequently, I wanted to play a D&D game up to 20, and my players like quests, so my games these days tend to be more in the middle.

 

[Mark]

I'll repost this here -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-we-like-plot-our-job-dms-19.html#post5009289

There's a sliding scale where the sandbox end generally equates to nothing but story elements existing in advance and the plotted end equating to where full tales exist and the player characters are essentially along for the ride. Very few games take place fully at either end of the sliding scale. Dropping full pre-written adventures into the mix of a somewhat character driven game tends to fall closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale. A homebrew with no pre-written adventures and tons of psuedo-static elements (people, places and things) sprinkled all over for the PCs to discover and through exploration link together (with a GM either randomizing or making decisions about reactions, consequences of actions, etc.) tends to fall closer to the sandbox end of the sliding scale. If one can generally suggest the course and outcome of a game prior to playing, the game probably exists closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale. If it can only be retold retrospectively because of the vast array of possible choices the PCs had during play, the game probably exists closer to the sandbox end of the sliding scale. With the right circumstances, players and GM (would find - ed) most of these games would be quite enjoyable.

 

[Desdichado]

And that point will vary due to DM and Players: style, skills, likes/dislikes and the system used (among other things).

Well, yes. Of course. I'm merely referring to the somewhat faddish interpretation I've seen in recent months that a "pure sandbox" is actually a desireable state of affairs rather than a theoretical endpoint on a spectrum. Naturally different people have different places on the spectrum where they prefer to game, but the actual extreme case is one... well, extreme. It's not a mainstream place to game, it's an extreme niche place to game, and few gamers enjoy such niche gaming.

 

[amysrevenge]

Hop aboard the PLOT TRAIN!!!

(One of the few who picked the top option - I guess that makes my fun the badwrong sort lol)

 

[Sadrik]

Negative things about linear games:
Can leave players feeling helpless
Can be boring
Can feel forced
Can be overly long (players already arrived at the point but you have to go through the motions)

Negative things about Sandbox games:
Can lack campaign focus
Can degrade into non-action as the action
Can be too random
Can lack a deeper play (investigation, hidden agendas etc.)

I think the best style of game is a hybrid game that incorporates the positives of both. That means adding some deeper story and investigative elements to the sandbox.

Most games I have played in and run have been linear games but the ones that have really shined were the sandbox games. From here on out I intend to only run and only prefer to play in sandbox games (barring convention play and one-shot games).