Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6723125" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Actually, I had similar thoughts as Celebrim when I read your initial post.  A plot that follows the players around meets many gamers' definition of a railroad.  "We do not want to play out the plotline of two nations heading to war which will culminate in a massive naval battle, but whenever we seek to depart from it we hear the whistle. "WHOO WHOOOOOO - All Aboard the Plot Train"The fact that the tracks move to intersect with the players does not change the structure from being a railroad.  To many players, the fact that they are required to "buy in" to the one central plot is a railroad.  To you it is not.TRANSLATION BY THE RAILROAD HATER:  We can take any branch line we want, but all tracks lead to the massive naval battle at the hub of the railroad.  For some, this would be even worse than the classic linear railroad, in that it tries to create the illusion of freedom, but whenever the players feel like they have exercised agency and left the plot rain, they find themselves back on the tracks.A "not railroad" would abandon the other key players in this story to move on to another story with which the players have decided (or have the choice of deciding to) interact with, not keep the One True Story of the Campaign going.  I would describe your campaign as an adventure path - the path always leads to the giant naval battle at the end, and the players will find that, no matter where they go or what they do, this plot will always appear once again.  To the question of the OP, you get the players to stay on the adventure path by having every path they could take intersect with this adventure.Whereas, in a true sandbox, the players could decide to walk away from this region - just ignore it - and it would never again intersect with their adventures.  That story has ceased to be a part of THEIR story, based on their choice not to become involved with it.Which many would call a railroad - the players are not allowed to escape this plot.  It will come to them if they do not come to it.RAILROAD:  Wherever you go, the pirate captain follows.  SANDBOX:  If you choose to walk away from the pirate captain, he is gone from the story and new plotlines develop (unless you later choose to seek out the pirate captain again). SANDBOX:  The Cult is targeting City X.  If you leave, or never visit City X, they are not your problem.  RAILROAD:  The Cult targets whatever city you are in.  "We cannot escape the railroad - the Cult appears no matter where we go."Emphasis added.  I would rephrase this as a good balance between railroad and sandbox.  While not trying to get "too railroady", you also don't want to be "too sandboxy".  Neither the feel of watching a movie (furthest Railroad point on the continuum) nor the feel of flailing about aimlessly with no actual plot (furthers Sandbox point at the opposite end).  But players may not agree with your balance.  Some may well find "no matter where we go, the plot follows us" too railroady, and not the good balance you perceive it as.Phrased another way (as those who WOULD call it a railroad would perceive it), there's just one big plot, an overarching story, with multiple subplots, threading to and through it. And depending on where the players go, they can engage with a different subplot line. Eventually all these subplot lines will lead to the same overall conclusion to the main plot, but although every subplot line can be affected by the players, the final overall conclusion can never be avoided or changed.Others would call it a railroad.  I suggest it has elements of a railroad and elements of a sandbox, and that pretty much every good game also has elements of each.  The balance varies, and different people have different preferences for that balance.Emphasis added.  The fact that anything is "set in stone" indicates a railroad element.The railroad always comes to the terminus of the big naval battle against a specific enemy the PC's will be fighting.  In a true sandbox, the naval battle might be ignored by the PC's, or they could choose either side, or they could negotiate peace with the parties so there would never be a battle, or they might avert the naval battle (perhaps moving its location to a great battle of armies on a plain, or perhaps sabotaging one side's naval forces so they cannot battle and lose by default).Having the ending is a railroad element.  I could as easily say that the dungeon has nine sequential rooms, but in each the players could negotiate, navigate past by stealth, or engage in combat - and they may win, or they may fail - but the end will still be the climax in the ninth room (unless the players abandon the campaign entirely  which would also mean that naval battle never gets played out).  They can't walk away from that dungeon entrance, though.  Wherever they go, the next encounter will be what was behind that next dungeon door.  That's got more railroad and less sandbox, but the principal is the same.Another viewpoint is that, if all decisions of the PC's will lead to the same outcome, that is also railroading.The fact that a game can be fun while being a railroad, or having railroad elements, is inarguable.  Adventure paths would not sell if many players did not enjoy games with some element of railroading in them.  The fact that it is an enjoyable railroad does not make it any less a railroad, nor will it make the Campaign of the Great Naval Battle any less a railroad, or any more palatable to a player who instead wants to delve deep into the Underdark, or explore the Elemental Planes, or do anything else, and escape surface politics entirely.  He is still railroaded to the ultimate end of the naval battle.Good advice?  Sure.  But this advice is "Find a balance between railroad and sandbox", not "abandon the railroad for the pure sandbox".You simply have a different definition of a railroad, which I would more call scripting.  To pick it apart: - you have already written the outcome - the naval battle - railroad. - you refer to the villain always escaping versus the ability of the players to foil his plans - so can the players foil the plans of those seeking the naval battle?  If not, then railroad.  In other words, your story hinges on the naval battle not being prevented - railroad.</blockquote>

Verification