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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oryan77" data-source="post: 6382534" data-attributes="member: 18701">So I started this thread because I'm amazed at how many people voted for a "sandbox" adventure being the 2nd most important thing to writing an adventure. And frankly, I'm sick of the whole "sandbox" bandwagon since it comes off as elitist and basically is saying that I'm not doing something right when I run my adventures. By several of the replies, it seems like that is still the case.So I want to disprove that myth. Not that I am trying to say a sandbox game is bad. I'm trying to say, a sandbox does not automatically make it good and a railroad does not automatically make it bad.Common themes I see a lot with sandbox games is that the DM does the following things:1. The internet has made it seem like sandboxes = good and railroads = bad. That's BS, but it doesn't stop a ton of DMs from trying to appear holier than thou by labeling themselves as a sandbox DM and then badmouths a railroad game. 2. Many DMs use this as an excuse to be lazy. They think that by being a sandbox DM, it means that they'll automatically be welcomed with open arms since the internet says that sandboxes are better. And then it means that they don't have to prepare anything because, hey, it's a sandbox and we can't predict what the players will do. It's a perfect scapegoat for the lazy DM!3. There is an awful lot of pointless dialogue and pointless activities that go on in a sandbox game. My PCs spent time gardening, talking to random old ladies in their front yards, I've had conversations about radishes, one of my PCs did some manual labor and helped the guards set up a blockade for a possible zombie attack (roleplayed out and then the invasion was too hard for my PC, probably because it wasn't planned ahead of time), and I once roamed aimlessly around town because I was expected to use in-game time to learn about the cites first hand rather than learn them through adventuring. The DM just waited for me to provide the hook and I had no idea what to do since it was the first session. After 4 hours of this, I realized that the DM was hinting that I might like to leave town and randomly explore the surrounding area. If he just ran a freaking published adventure, I could have been well into chapter 2 by then, met lots of interesting NPCs and venues, had a clear goal, already killed some bad guys, and had fun for 4 hours. But according to the internet, that's not fun since that adventure was thrust upon me and I didn't choose to do that myself via the sandbox.That is how it comes off from my personal experience playing in sandbox games (every single one of them I've played in). And that's the impression I get when I hear a lot of DMs online claiming that sandboxes are the one-true-way and anything remotely as coming off as a railroad is garbage. I mean for crying out loud, how often do I see someone say, "blah blah blah which is why I don't buy or run published adventures." I've DMed for almost 20 years and 90% of what I run is from published adventures. They wouldn't keep making them if people didn't think they were good. You're just being an elitist cause you're obviously more talented at DMing than I am. I've also very rarely been bored in an adventure that would be classified as a railroad. My PC has a clear goal, it's interesting, I'm making progress, I'm killing stuff and taking loot, and most importantly, I'm not bored and I'm having fun. So tell me again why an adventure with a linear path (aka railroad) is bad? Cause I thought I was playing D&D to have fun? Which I am.Before anyone starts getting defensive, relax. Pay attention to what I'm saying rather than skimming over it so you can reply back to tell me I'm wrong. Yes, I understand a railroad can be bad when done by a bad DM. That in no way makes a railroad game bad though. I also understand that plenty of sandbox DMs are not lazy, they do prepare things, and they are good at running a sandbox game. I have just never had the pleasure to play in ones game. My point is that any DM worth a dang is going to recognize the good/bad of both sandbox and railroaded games and knows that both are equally as fun if run by the right DM. A good DM may even do a bit of both in his campaign. To completely disregard one or the other is insanity to me. The only logic I can get from that is that you are trying to be an elitist.I understand what you're saying since the sandbox games I've played in were pretty much just that. Not necessarily using random encounter tables, but the DMs definitely just pulled some random encounter out of thin air since we were getting bored due to not knowing WTF to do and not finding his "hooks" fast enough. So we get some random fight so we're not bored, but this is all unplanned since it's a "sandbox" game. Which means, the DM didn't give the challenge rating system any thought, and now his "random" encounters are too tough for our level. Not that I think he is making them too tough on purpose. It's just that since he didn't actually prepare it beforehand, he's unable to gauge how hard it actually will be for us. Is that what you are actually referring to?Look, based on how you are replying to people, I'm sure I know what I'm about to get myself in to. But I'm going to take a stab at this and see if we can discuss it maturely.You seem to be very pro sandbox, to the point that you're willing to even tell a guy that his sandbox game is a railroad game just so there isn't a blemish on your preferred style. But the guy has very valid points, because I've experienced the same thing. And I know what the difference between the two styles of games are since I've been at this long enough.I am noticing one thing here though. You are focusing more on the campaign being a sandbox rather than the adventures like the OP (oh that's me) was focusing on at the start. There is a difference. Here is what I mean:I run lots of railroaded adventures. But I like to think that I try to keep my campaign world as sandboxy as possible. The PCs are free to do as they wish (within reason). They help build the story around the adventures that I provide for them. I even encourage them to be pro-active and do their own thing so that I am not spoon feeding them content. What I do though, is railroad my adventures so that they integrate with what it is the PCs are doing. I've said it before, it's the illusion that I am not railroading. I want to run an adventure because it sounds exciting for me as a DM to DM, I paid for it, and I've prepared it. It will not go to waste, and it will be fun (well, I hope...we've all had a few stinkers whether self-written or not). The key  is, not to jump the gun. If the timing is not right, I will put it off until I can somehow weave it into what the PCs are currently doing. Even now, I'm itching to start my epic adventure and the PCs keep going off on a tangent and we haven't started it yet. It's been two months, with another month to go it seems, and I haven't started it. Right now I'm just rolling with the punches and making things up as we go until they are finished doing what they are doing. But we will start this adventure. I've never once had a player complain about how I run adventures because they are having fun and it isn't obvious that I do railroad them into doing what the adventure expects of them. Or maybe they do notice sometimes and they just don't care cause they are having fun. At the same time, I'm not railroading a single outcome. If they fail, they fail. And boy did they fail when I ran Dead Gods. Orcus came back in full force thanks to the PCs failing. But I managed to railroad them into completely every single chapter in that adventure. The thing is, they felt like they made those choices themselves.</blockquote>

Verification