D&D General Not Railroad, Not Sandbox ... What else is there?

[Neonchameleon]

The essence of a "story" is a desire and an obstacle to that desire.

From the perspective of adventure design, this means the designer must actualize something desirable that the players want.

But not all adventures are designed. Someone must actualise something desirable. But although that can come from a third party adventure designer or even the GM it IME works better if it comes from the players. The GM needs to be the opposition (being your own opposition generally doesn't work well).

If the object of desire is only excitement and treasure, it is an isolated dungeon crawl. If it integrates preferences and ambitions of the character personality and backstory, it invites immersion into the wider regional and world setting.

oD&D worked because the object of desire was treasure and what you could do with that treasure. The XP for GP rule worked wonders for motivation and having things to spend it on the way 5e doesn't made it a long term motivation.

 

[Yaarel]

Okay, you're coming at this from the perspective that it's the GM's job to guide the story and ensure things like pacing. This isn't required at all, even in D&D. It's certainly a valid approach to take in D&D, though, and one I think is predominant.

Guiding is a good word. Because it is the players who decide what they want and what they want to do about it. The DM is creating the setting around where the players characters go. But there are plot points. Typically, the Big Bad Evil Guy at the end of the adventure is also the climax of the adventure story. There are points leading upto it, and hopefully afterward characters survive and return to the "normal world" with power to transform it for the better during downtime.

 

[Guest 7034872]

If humans are fundamentally narrative animals even while unconscious, then it's hard to see how a D&D adventure occurs without some kind of narrative binding it together. I mean, a sloppy narrative is still a narrative, right? So now let's take the example of a narrative that I say isn't sloppy, but is inherently unpredictable: the exquisite corpse. Isn't that what even the most sandbox-y adventures become if they're run well?

 

[Yaarel]

although that can come from a third party adventure designer or even the GM it IME works better if it comes from the players.

Yes!

The GM needs to be the opposition (being your own opposition generally doesn't work well).

I view the DM more specifically as playing the "setting" of the story, while the players play the "heroes" of the story.

But what that opposition to the desire looks like and why it is opposing it are part of the DMs setting.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So, to lighten the discussion and get back to the OP.

There are the little known railbox and sandroad styles of running a campaign.

One involves one line of rail and some sand ...

OK, I will see myself out.

Cheers

Railbox: it's like a sandbox, but you can only travel between hills via preset paths.

Sandroad: You'll can go forward and back as much as you like, but only so far side to side.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Guiding is a good word. Because it is the players who decide what they want and what they want to do about it. The DM is creating the setting around where the players characters go. But there are plot points. Typically, the Big Bad Evil Guy at the end of the adventure is also the climax of the adventure story. There are points leading upto it, and hopefully afterward characters survive and return to the "normal world" with power to transform it for the better during downtime.

This isn't actually required at all, though. Even in D&D. Look to classic dungeon crawls which lack most of the things you're talking about here. This is very much Trad play, though, and as I said I believe it to be the majority approach to 5e. It wasn't for B/X, though. It's not in a lot of OSR D&D offshoots, either. It's not necessary for 5e. It's an approach, and many seem to enjoy it (it's usually what I do when I run 5e myself), but it's not THE approach. And, if you get into some other systems, it's not even possible to do for some of them. It has become the default approach for 5e, though, if you're willing to use the published adventures as any metric at least.

 

[S'mon]

Railbox: it's like a sandbox, but you can only travel between hills via preset paths.

Sandroad: You'll can go forward and back as much as you like, but only so far side to side.

Railbox design seems pretty common. I'm running Odyssey of the Dragonlords, which uses this. There's also Skyrim type design, with a sandbox wilderness full of linear (mostly dungeon) adventures, that activate when discovered. A sandbox full of rails?

 

[jgsugden]

Read the definition of STORY I posted. Now, A ROLE in D&D is the function assumed by a person or thing in a particular situation (that's how the game was designed). The ROLE I played last week IRL was product strategy consultant. In a game it was a meat shield. One of my son's has the ROLE of Machinists Mate Nuclear (MMN) on an attack sub. NOTHING to do with a story in any case.

I ... did read your definition. I used it, as well as your clarifying statements, in my response.

D&D is an RPG, and an RPG is a game where players assume the role of characters in a fictional story. Characters are inherently a reference to a person in a story. Anytime you recount anything that any character has done - boom - that is a story. It may not be a great story, but it is still a story.

We're arguing over language here, not substance, so I'll leave this alone after this post.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Railbox design seems pretty common. I'm running Odyssey of the Dragonlords, which uses this. There's also Skyrim type design, with a sandbox wilderness full of linear (mostly dungeon) adventures, that activate when discovered. A sandbox full of rails?

A model railroad table style of game.

 

[beancounter]

As long as the players don't get wise to it, "Card trick" is the best choice.