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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6387701" data-attributes="member: 20323">Nice to see this thread veering back into civil thoughtful discussion <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Dropping in with some quick thoughts.l.I appreciate the spirit of your post, and agree the DM is critical in this regard. However, I wouldn't discount the role adventure design plays. Earlier [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] mentioned Red Hand of Doom as an adventure style that accommodates both railroady and sandboxy gaming styles. But that's thanks to its unique design. It's very hard work for a DM to parse information from a linear adventure and turn that into a sandbox. Likewise, with a pure adventure setting it's hard work for a DM to make a linear story out of it.In other words, yes it CAN be down, but that ups the DM's workload significantly. If you're using a published adventure why not have it be as close to the style (railroady/sandboxy) that you want? Better yet, why not write adventures to accomodate both styles (like Red Hand of Doom)?That's totally true, but even with experienced players I know well it is still tricky. For example, mostly they are fairly reactive players but sometimes they'll fight me framing a scene when their "railroad" antennae go up. Now, I know it's from their past DM experiences, but what I've found is my safest best is to eliminate the  illusionism. So now when I give them a choice, it's always a really choice, no illusion of choice.</blockquote>

Verification