D&D General Lego Sandbox vs Open Sandbox (and other sandbox discussion)

[AlViking]

I'm currently playing in a Lego sandbox, the DM has been quite open about the fact that even though we prioritized finding a weapon we would need, the temple that had been taken over was still important. It's sort of a linear campaign with flexibility. Since we knew what we were signing up for, it's still fun.

My games are more open sandbox. Most campaigns are set in a homebrew world I've used for decades, with each campaign having a chance of changing the history of the world in ways large and small. I don't really plan plots or story arcs, although I do ask people to give me an idea of where they're headed next at the end of a session so I can prep for the next. But it's always up to the players where they go and I just do my best to set up interesting scenarios, NPCs, factions and monsters. Once a session starts, they're still free to wander off in an unexpected direction and how they deal with what they encounter is totally up to them. Even if it means totally ignoring what I thought would be fun and interesting encounters.

While I do have a world map and follow some living world concepts, I don't really do hex crawls, there will occasionally be a ticking clock I don't really plan more than a session or two ahead. Every once in a while I review factions and NPCs to see if what the characters have done change anything or if a shift of power makes sense. But beyond that I only really plan a session or three ahead and drop hints about what the players can pursue next.

 

[AlViking]

Can you clarify how? Here are my references:What was derogatory and offensive about that description, and/or using the terms in that fashion? I am not seeing what you think might be derogatory.

There's a big difference between linear and railroad. Railroad is quite a negative description of an authoritarian GM who micromanages everything the players do. No decision the players make really matter, if they are allowed to make any decisions at all. A linear campaign dictates the general outline of the game but doesn't force specific decisions and doesn't rely on quantum ogres that give only the illusion of decision making. There are lines with linear campaigns and you're expected to color between them, a railroad gives you the one crayon you have to use to trace a predefined outline.

 

[payn]

Can you clarify how? Here are my references:What was derogatory and offensive about that description, and/or using the terms in that fashion? I am not seeing what you think might be derogatory.

Railroad is not the same as linear or published adventure. Its a term for a GM style in which the players are offered no agency from the GM.

There's a big difference between linear and railroad. Railroad is quite a negative description of an authoritarian GM who micromanages everything the players do. No decision the players make really matter, if they are allowed to make any decisions at all. A linear campaign dictates the general outline of the game but doesn't force specific decisions and doesn't rely on quantum ogres that give only the illusion of decision making. There are lines with linear campaigns and you're expected to color between them, a railroad gives you the one crayon you have to use to trace a predefined outline.

Thank you.

 

[jgsugden]

There's a big difference between linear and railroad. Railroad is quite a negative description of an authoritarian GM who micromanages everything the players do. No decision the players make really matter, if they are allowed to make any decisions at all. A linear campaign dictates the general outline of the game but doesn't force specific decisions and doesn't rely on quantum ogres that give only the illusion of decision making. There are lines with linear campaigns and you're expected to color between them, a railroad gives you the one crayon you have to use to trace a predefined outline.

Railroad is not the same as linear or published adventure. Its a term for a GM style in which the players are offered no agency from the GM.

I apologize for the confusion, but these are not the only definitions that have been used for Railroad over the years, and they certainly are not the ones I intended. It has been used before as broadly as 'anything on tracks', which would include any adventure where the final resolution is defined from the start and the PCs are guided to it by the DM. This applies to most, if not all, published modules.

From experience, I can tell you that it was not considered an INHERENTLY derogatory term when it was used frequently in the 00s here on Enworld or on the WOTC forums (What do you consider a "railroading" module?). It was often used then as I used it above - to be the alternative to a Sandbox design. It was specifically used to reference existing (published) adventure paths, and specifically to portions of the adventures where there was no choice or chance to avoid. It was the undeniable certainty that the PCs would end up in a certain situation that defined the Railroad ... but that was not always seen as a derogatory element - at least not in those days.

Don't get me wrong - I prefer agency and choice. I left a campaign because the DM could not adapt to problem solving that took us "off track" - but that DM was running the Dark Sun adventures which, in my opinion, are the most Railroaded adventures that exist as they tell the DM to not allow players to do unexpected things.

Regardless, for this conversation, please consider Railroading with the definition I intended - as a situation in which there is a plan for where the game will go with a specific conclusory event in mind.

 

[payn]

I apologize for the confusion, but these are not the only definitions that have been used for Railroad over the years, and they certainly are not the ones I intended. It has been used before as broadly as 'anything on tracks', which would include any adventure where the final resolution is defined from the start and the PCs are guided to it by the DM. This applies to most, if not all, published modules.

From experience, I can tell you that it was not considered an INHERENTLY derogatory term when it was used frequently in the 00s here on Enworld or on the WOTC forums (What do you consider a "railroading" module?). It was often used then as I used it above - to be the alternative to a Sandbox design. It was specifically used to reference existing (published) adventure paths, and specifically to portions of the adventures where there was no choice or chance to avoid. It was the undeniable certainty that the PCs would end up in a certain situation that defined the Railroad ... but that was not always seen as a derogatory element - at least not in those days.

Don't get me wrong - I prefer agency and choice. I left a campaign because the DM could not adapt to problem solving that took us "off track" - but that DM was running the Dark Sun adventures which, in my opinion, are the most Railroaded adventures that exist as they tell the DM to not allow players to do unexpected things.

Regardless, for this conversation, please consider Railroading with the definition I intended - as a situation in which there is a plan for where the game will go with a specific conclusory event in mind.

I'll be leaving the thread after this post, but no, I wont be accepting that definition. It is very confusing to use it as such and weaponized by folks who dislike the Play style and have no respect for it.

 

[AlViking]

I apologize for the confusion, but these are not the only definitions that have been used for Railroad over the years, and they certainly are not the ones I intended. It has been used before as broadly as 'anything on tracks', which would include any adventure where the final resolution is defined from the start and the PCs are guided to it by the DM. This applies to most, if not all, published modules.

From experience, I can tell you that it was not considered an INHERENTLY derogatory term when it was used frequently in the 00s here on Enworld or on the WOTC forums (What do you consider a "railroading" module?). It was often used then as I used it above - to be the alternative to a Sandbox design. It was specifically used to reference existing (published) adventure paths, and specifically to portions of the adventures where there was no choice or chance to avoid. It was the undeniable certainty that the PCs would end up in a certain situation that defined the Railroad ... but that was not always seen as a derogatory element - at least not in those days.

Don't get me wrong - I prefer agency and choice. I left a campaign because the DM could not adapt to problem solving that took us "off track" - but that DM was running the Dark Sun adventures which, in my opinion, are the most Railroaded adventures that exist as they tell the DM to not allow players to do unexpected things.

Regardless, for this conversation, please consider Railroading with the definition I intended - as a situation in which there is a plan for where the game will go with a specific conclusory event in mind.

The term railroad is not specific to RPGs, but the definition from Urban Dictionary: railroad still applies.
"'To railroad' means to rig a situation such that events can only play out in a particular manner, or to a particular end. When applied to a trial, it means to manipulate the judicial system such that a defendant is virtually guaranteed a conviction. The metaphor derives from the nature of a railroad track, which does not offer a train the ability to choose its path of travel."

It doesn't matter how you "intend" a word, what matters is that people have told you it's a derogatory word. When people tell me that something is derogatory, even when I did not know that it was, I believe them. Especially when more than one person says it. There is nothing wrong with using "linear" to describe a campaign with fixed story arc and it is not offensive. How hard is it to use "linear"?

 

[FrogReaver]

Monopoly has railroads. Make from that what you will.

 

[Minigiant]

Neither

The PCs don't choose an adventure or go with the flow.

I endpoints and have the paths grow from the end.

And it's up to the PCs to avoid the paths they don't want.

It's like a sandbox morphing into 3 or more railroads and it's up to the PCs to break the tracks.

 

[FrogReaver]

To me the difference in sandbox and linear is more, can the players go out and find interesting and relevant things to do no matter what path they choose vs there is only 1 main path for them to follow, possibly with a few side quests and possibly with a few alternate sequences to read the paths destination.

Both are fun and both have pros and cons.

 

[jgsugden]

The term railroad is not specific to RPGs, but the definition from Urban Dictionary: railroad still applies.
"'To railroad' means to rig a situation such that events can only play out in a particular manner, or to a particular end. When applied to a trial, it means to manipulate the judicial system such that a defendant is virtually guaranteed a conviction. The metaphor derives from the nature of a railroad track, which does not offer a train the ability to choose its path of travel."

It doesn't matter how you "intend" a word, what matters is that people have told you it's a derogatory word. When people tell me that something is derogatory, even when I did not know that it was, I believe them. Especially when more than one person says it. There is nothing wrong with using "linear" to describe a campaign with fixed story arc and it is not offensive. How hard is it to use "linear"?

It isn't hard to use linear ... but your Urban Dictionary definition does not specifically indicate that it is derogatory. The illustrative example they use it in is not a very positive one, but it is not defined as derogatory.

And, as mentioned, it has been used for many years to describe situations without them being inherently derogatory. I showed you a thread from 2007 where the term is discussed for pages with many people indicating that it is not inherently derogatory.

Regardless, to avoid confusion I struck the railroad discussion from the original question as it was (as I previously indicated) not core to this discussion, but merely used as a clarifying reference point. To that end this back and forth, it is not relevant to this thread ... so let's just let this go?