Dookie in the Sandbox?

[Ariosto]

Remember that most traditional dungeon crawls are (at least as presented) perfect examples of status quo sandbox areas.

No doubt, if you consider everything ever commercially published "traditional". More has been published in the past 20 years (from 2E on) than in the 15 before -- and most of the modules published prior were tournament scenarios. Even in the latter category, though, I would say that the G and D series should be pretty darned dynamic if run properly.

I would consider the truly "traditional dungeon crawl", though, to be the campaign dungeon as described in the seminal works. That is the epitome of the D&D "sandbox", and it is very dynamic. Not only are there wandering monsters and internal factions, but the very geography can change radically in order to keep the underworld fresh.

 

[Desdichado]

That's fair enough I suppose, but it doesn't mean it's bad. In that situation, I'd wonder what was wrong with this player that he couldn't compromise with the rest of the group and see that he was threatening the game with the inability to actually happen. Especially in a Con/Gameday scenario. The railroad tolerances are (should be, anyway) looser in that environment, because if you spend an hour or two spinning your wheels at the beginning the game, then you just have that much less game overall.

I guess I'm not sure what the point of bringing that story up is. My reaction to it is that the guy's a jerk who's violating the implicit social contract with the rest of the folks gaming with him. If he wants to selfishly insist on doing things his own way at the expense of everyone else... I have little sympathy for him. That goes way beyond having a style preference; that's being a squeeky wheel attention whore.

:shrug:

 

[MarkB]

I don't follow you here.

In this case, the motivation to restore the mine is power and the satisfaction of saving the world, at least this part of the world anyway. Whichever group takes over the mine will now grow in power all thanks to the heroes.

The status quo has changed for the better. This is a powerful motivating factor. It can provide just as much of a sense of accomplishment and heroism as preventing an ideal status quo from changing. It's even more satisfying, in my opinion as a player, because I had a more active say in the change.

Whoa there. So in your monster-infested mine example, the players' characters have pre-established motivations to gain power and provide assistance to would-be miners? In that case, the presence of the mine is - by your definitions and examples - a clear railroad, since it compels those players to take a specific course of action, or else go against their characters' motivations.

Or, if the characters do not have any motivations to deal with the mine, they'll just ignore it, and it becomes a valueless piece of fluff - a mark on a map, never referred to again.

That's the problem with your definition of railroading - anything that engages with the PCs' motivation becomes a railroad.

Got a PC with a fear of drowning? Can't have any rivers or lakes in your sandbox, then - he'll feel constrained to go around them. Equally, they must be absent if a character has a liking for swimming, lest he feel constrained to investigate them.

Character afraid of heights, or a keen mountaineer? Your gameworld had best be flat as a pancake to avoid railroading him.

In the end, once you've eliminated anything which can possibly influence the PCs into actions contrary to the players' unstated wishes, your sandbox will be exactly that - just a featureless box of sand.

Unless any of the PCs have strong feelings regarding sand, of course...

 

[Krensky]

I have said repeatedly that event based games put pressure on players, and IMO a railroad is when this pressure is intolerable.

You are still putting pressure on your players in your vision of a sandbox game. Think of something to do or we'll all be bored.

In darker times it's the heroes who want change, not villains.

Depends on the villains. Maintaining their position as Dark Overlord takes actions as well. One of those actions would be to neutralize the group of plucky adventurers who are making a name for themselves righting wrongs or whatever. This can take many forms, killing them, killing their loved ones (tends to backfire), bribery, corruption etc.

If the villains and events are happening independent of the PCs actions, then anyone can develop this for the DM. He can just pick up a module, or adventure path, or railroad, or whatever and crank out the world as given.

Feature, not a bug. Also irrelevant since were not talking about module vs home brew. That said, in the case of home brew, your sandbox GM doesn't have to worry about things once the PCs leave the scene. Everything freezes. When they come back to the town the next year the goblins are still camped on their door step laying siege. The villagers will still be in the inn in the city to drop the quest needing warriors to protect their village and harvest from bandits, etc.

A sandbox GM has to be more reactive. Instead of plotting doom to the setting, he gets to make changes to the status quo in a positive way as the PCs improve the world. I think this actually fosters a more cooperative relationship between players and DMs and inspires fewer meta game attitudes, munchkinism and 'us vs them' attitudes.

Speaking of munchkinism, this style of play also makes it easier for PCs to choose their own challenges. It's just a matter of understanding the world around them and avoiding areas that are seen as too difficult. This lets the PCs make whatever type of character they want, even if it's not completely optimal. The DM is not the player's adversary and is not plotting their doom. Instead, the players are the ones risking their characters for the betterment of the game world.

Those issues have nothing to do with the play styles. Heck, I've seen far more advesarial play in old-school sand box games. It's sort of what they're known for (right or wrongly).

Like I said, there can be a lot to do on a train. But you're not the one who is really driving it. The DM is moving the world without you while you coast along.

Except you are defining anything other the... crap the analogy doesn't hold... um... some magical flying device like a ufo that has no limitations on where it can go or what medium it can travel through and is completely unaffected by the laws of physics as a train. Most people would disagree with you.

First of all, you can have excitement within a world even if it's static. Second, player choices matter even more BECAUSE nothing happens when they make no choices.

Um... Inaction is a choice too. That's why you can (and likely will) be charged with a crime if you watch a man drown without trying to help. Ignoring a plot hook may mean bad things happen. It may mean good things happen. It may even mean non events happen. Things should still happen!

 

[Desdichado]

My point is that if the DM is spending his time on creating villains and plots that are more or less independent of the players then you could modularize the ideas, package them and sell them. They can become interchangeable with other campaigns. I feel this is more 'robotic' than anything a reactive, positive sandbox DM would do differently.

I think there's a point, and an implicit value judgement in there somewhere... but I can't quite make it out. I'm not even sure what you're describing. Again; who said anything about making modular NPCs and selling them? That seems to be coming completely out of left field.

Why do the PCs in the dynamic world have to react? Can they just get into a magical bomb shelter and peek out every few years or so to see how the world's passing by? If they do what will have happened to the world?

That is a reaction.

A boring one, but it's a reaction.

In a static game there's no point in doing that. This provides more motivated to go out and explore the world.

You keep saying something to that effect, but since almost everyone who's responded to you (including me) disagrees, maybe it's time we dropped that. Let me just reiterate that I completely and absolutely disagree. There's no motivation for me as a player, or any other player that I can ever recall gaming with, to go out and explore the world.

I'm sorry I guess we just disagree on that. I think a DM can be 'railroading' players even if there's more than a single action to take. The number of actions and amount of freedom is relative to what someone calls a railroad. For you it sounds like nothing is a railroad as long as there are two possible tracks. For others it may be 10, or 20, or 50, or whatever. Some people want freedom more than others I guess.

And again; you're attempting to redefine a well-accepted term. You can continue to try and do so, but you've got to understand, that's a huge part of the resistance you're finding in this thread. You're not using the word 'railroading' in the same way that the rest of online gamerdom does.

 

[takasi]

Whoa there. So in your monster-infested mine example, the players' characters have pre-established motivations to gain power and provide assistance to would-be miners? In that case, the presence of the mine is - by your definitions and examples - a clear railroad, since it compels those players to take a specific course of action, or else go against their characters' motivations.

No in that case the thing compelling the characters to act comes from player motivation. Players, in my experience, tend to enjoy this more, as opposed to having characters compelled to act because of something an NPC has done.

Or, if the characters do not have any motivations to deal with the mine, they'll just ignore it, and it becomes a valueless piece of fluff - a mark on a map, never referred to again.

Perfectly reasonable. The world is a big place.

Got a PC with a fear of drowning? Can't have any rivers or lakes in your sandbox, then - he'll feel constrained to go around them.

I agree. I said earlier that you can have a road from town a to town b infested with high level monsters, with the only safe point being the road, i.e. almost any MMO out there. The difference is that players can change the world. Heck, if they get to be high enough level they can even move rivers and lakes and flatten the land. Or they can travel to other worlds and find a better home; the choice is up to them.

 

[takasi]

You are still putting pressure on your players in your vision of a sandbox game. Think of something to do or we'll all be bored.

The origin of the pressure on a character makes a huge difference. In this case it's coming from the players.

Depends on the villains. Maintaining their position as Dark Overlord takes actions as well. One of those actions would be to neutralize the group of plucky adventurers who are making a name for themselves righting wrongs or whatever. This can take many forms, killing them, killing their loved ones (tends to backfire), bribery, corruption etc.

Exactly. And all of those environmental reactions came from the player's decisions. If the players had wanted to stay under the radar they could have, but they chose a specific villain to mess with.

Compare this with some secret cult that really doesn't care who the players are, setting plans in motion. The DM who puts his hands together and laughs maniacally with plans to 'take over the world'. Dude, you're the DM, of course you can take over the world! Do it already and then let the players have at turn!

That said, in the case of home brew, your sandbox GM doesn't have to worry about things once the PCs leave the scene. Everything freezes. When they come back to the town the next year the goblins are still camped on their door step laying siege.

First of all, what goblins at what doorstep?

Second, that's sort of an absolute extreme. Things can change, but in reaction to the players not the DM's twisted machinations.

 

[takasi]

That is a reaction.

A boring one, but it's a reaction.

If the DM is making some crazy, fast moving dynamic world, why not play an eccentric character who builds his own impenetrable tower and watches the DM tell us how his setting unfolds? It only sounds boring if the world is more stagnant, in which case the player might be motivated to go out and have his own turn at changing the world.

There's no motivation for me as a player, or any other player that I can ever recall gaming with, to go out and explore the world.

I can think of a million reasons why a character would want to adventure and change the world. If you can't, then I guess maybe you should just let the DM do it for you after all.

And again; you're attempting to redefine a well-accepted term. You can continue to try and do so, but you've got to understand, that's a huge part of the resistance you're finding in this thread. You're not using the word 'railroading' in the same way that the rest of online gamerdom does.

Can you define it again? You said it's just one track right? How about if there are only two? Or five? Or ten? How many options have to be on the table to prevent something from being a railroad?

Because as you said earlier there are always at least two tracks: do or do not. So I guess railroads don't exist?

 

[Krensky]

The origin of the pressure on a character makes a huge difference. In this case it's coming from the players.

I say it's coming from the GM for not having a plot.

Exactly. And all of those environmental reactions came from the player's decisions. If the players had wanted to stay under the radar they could have, but they chose a specific villain to mess with.

That's not what I said. The players are just doing good. The Overlord hears about it, and not liking do-gooders and being a proactive sort of guy who read the evil overlord list and knows that it's best to nip these things in the bud sends someone out to shank them before they start messing with him.

Compare this with some secret cult that really doesn't care who the players are, setting plans in motion. The DM who puts his hands together and laughs maniacally with plans to 'take over the world'. Dude, you're the DM, of course you can take over the world! Do it already and then let the players have at turn!

So we come back to the "Only the players deserve to have fun." bit. If the players don't engage with the hooks for the cult at all its best to shuffle them off for use later or for re-skinning or whatever. If they do and then choose to wander off, well, at that point why should the cult just stop until they reenter the PC's range again?

First of all, what goblins at what doorstep?

The ones the PCs choose not to do anything about when they left town.

Second, that's sort of an absolute extreme. Things can change, but in reaction to the players not the DM's twisted machinations.

You need to use less value laden words.

The DM having a plot outline and notes on the things that go on in the world independent of the PCs are not twisted machinations. As for it being an extreme, its perfectly consistent with your descriptions of GMing.

GM: The villiage ahead of you seems to be beseiged by goblins.

Players: Nah, we don't want to get involved, we'll sneak out and come back later.

{adventuring, with the PCs eventually going back to that villiage}

GM: The villiage ahead of you seems to be beseiged by goblins.

Players: But it's been three years.

GM: Status quo world. Nothing changes unless you change it.

 

[Krensky]

Can you define it again? You said it's just one track right? How about if there are only two? Or five? Or ten? How many options have to be on the table to prevent something from being a railroad?

Because as you said earlier there are always at least two tracks: do or do not. So I guess railroads don't exist?

railroad - Wiktionary meaning 4.

If the GM is not bullying you into taking the one true path, it's not a railroad. If you can say no and the game goes on without the universe conspiring to make you do what the GM wants, it's not a railroad.