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

[robconley]

Funny, I think a non-story adventure is by definition pointless, not that you cannot make it fun, it may even be a preference, but a story, by definition has a point - it starts, points in a direction, and arrives at a solution based on PC's actions. The story is the point. It cannot be pointless, perhaps having a point isn't your goal in a game. That's fine, but doesn't make it railroads pointless - it's why people use railroads, the point is built in.

You can only tell a story about your trip to Greece after the trip is concluded. You can plan an itinerary with some goal in mind like visiting all the sites of the Persian Wars but there is no story until you have actually done the trip.

It the same way with a sandbox campaign in a fantasy setting, or a science fiction setting despite the fantastic nature of the setting.

In both the outcome can't be predicted, and it only be experienced and after it over a story can be told.

 

[gamerprinter]

You can only tell a story about your trip to Greece after the trip is concluded. You can plan an itinerary with some goal in mind like visiting all the sites of the Persian Wars but there is no story until you have actually done the trip.

Certainly in reality, you cannot tell a story until the story has occurred, but in story based adventure, it's not reality, and the story is prepared fully from the beginning with an intended direction to a defined end. Now the idiosyncratic details of how that story progresses, changes with the play of the player characters, but the story ultimate comes to pass as written. Because a story game is not reality.

 

[robconley]

Certainly in reality, you cannot tell a story until the story has occurred, but in story based adventure, it's not reality, and the story is prepared fully from the beginning with an intended direction to a defined end. Now the idiosyncratic details of how that story progresses, changes with the play of the player characters, but the story ultimate comes to pass as written. Because a story game is not reality.

And your thesis in the post I replied to was that a non story adventure is pointless. That it can’t be fun.

The goal of a sandbox campaign is to experience the setting as a character who could exist within the setting. It fun because because the players find playing characters in that setting interesting. I reference a trip to Greece because the motivation is similar. To go somewhere interesting and experience it for yourself. With tabletop it is done with pen and paper.

It not aimless because players after hearing about the setting figure out something interesting to do as a character within the setting. If some more interesting develops during the campaign then they change their mind and thus things develops differently.

Nothing is predetermined except for perhaps natural events like earthquakes, storms and the like. Locales are created along with the characters that inhabit with their plans. As the players make their way as their characters they have an impact on these character. Based on the circumstances, the character’s personality and motivation their plans get altered.

This can work whether the setting is grounded how life work some something more fantastic like a world with superheroes or Howard’s Hyboria.

And easily handled with pen, paper, and a RPG because the players don’t deal with everybody in a setting. The details only need to be fleshed out for their immediate social circle while the rest can be painted with broad strokes.

 

[Maxperson]

We all hear about Railroading and Sandbox games - but there is no singular definition for either of these terms, and many people would apply them differently. Further, I don't think that every game situation we see fits neatly into these two boxes. So, I'd like to hear people brainstorm on other approaches that do not exactly fit into these boxes. As there is no singular universal definition for either of these terms, I am going to provide them for the purposes of this discussion, and will intentionally use a definition that is on the narrower side for each to make sure we have room around these points.

RAILROAD: A linear storyline where the DM forces players to follow the predesigned storyline of the adventure. To be a railroad under this definition, there must be a path for the PCs to follow, and they can't be allowed to meaningfully deviate from it, wityh course correction achieved either through planned obstacles, contrived improvised barriers, or out of game dictums by the DM. The DM drives the story.

SANDBOX: A player driven storytelling technique in which the DM presents options, but players drive the direction of the game towards whatever goals they wish. To be a sandbox under this definition, the DM can't redirect the party with barriers constructed with the intent to alter or limit their choices. The DM will drop options in front of the PCs, but the players are free to ignore the provided options and go in a very different direction if they so desire. The story is player driven.

So what doesn't fit neatly in these boxes? Here are a few things I have used or seen that might fit in broader definitions of Sandbox or Railroad, but I do not believe fit in the narrower ones I provided above.

BINGO CARD: The DM prepares a series of challenges and the players can choose which of the options they wish to pursue, but they are not free to go "off the menu" and pursue a goal not prepared for them by the DM. In these situations, the DM tends to start preparing several places the PCs might explore, and then tweaks them as the PCs advance so that they are an appropriate challenge when the PCs arrive there. The PCs have choice, but it is a multi-choice option.

CARD TRICK: The PCs are given the illusion of choice, but in the end there is no real choice when it comes to the big things. In this situation, the DM allows the players to make superficial choices, but regardless of what they choose to do, certain events will transpire at times selected by the DM that will progress one or more main storylines. For example, the PCs would be given choices like a sandbox game, but the DM will include an artifact in a treasure haul right before they hit 5th level, enemies will come looking for the item and try to steal it at 8th level (and will continue to do so until they succeed), the PCs will discover where it is by coming across clues at 11th level that indicate that they must use it, and the PCs be given their chance to use it to save the world at 17th level. The main storyline is on a railroad, but the supplemental storylines are a sandbox.

Thoughts? Other ideas that do not fit neatly into the above, or are another (perhaps better) way of thinking of Bingo Card or Card Trick?

Bingo is just variety of Railroad where the rails are invisible.

 

[Maxperson]

Funny, I think a non-story adventure is by definition pointless, not that you cannot make it fun, it may even be a preference, but a story, by definition has a point - it starts, points in a direction, and arrives at a solution based on PC's actions. The story is the point. It cannot be pointless, perhaps having a point isn't your goal in a game. That's fine, but doesn't make it railroads pointless - it's why people use railroads, the point is built in.

Many prefer sand-boxes, that's perfectly fine - I write adventures, and I don't know how to really write without a story. I could provide a bunch content related and unrelated and drop it into a setting, and the players figure out everything - that could be fun. But it doesn't interest me, any more than maybe doing that once, as an experiment. You don't have to like railroads, and you can even criticize railroads - that's fair. But calling it something that is the complete opposite of what it is (being pointless), is a poor argument, since the railroad is a point based story.

You seem confused on Sandbox play. If I'm playing in a Sandbox game and I decide to go north to take over the barbarian tribes south of the sheet of solid ice and be their king, that's my choice. I can do that. It's a sandbox. It's also the story of my going north to do those things. It has a beginning, a point, goals, etc. It's just not the DM's job to create that story. It's mine.

 

[gamerprinter]

You seem confused on Sandbox play. If I'm playing in a Sandbox game and I decide to go north to take over the barbarian tribes south of the sheet of solid ice and be their king, that's my choice. I can do that. It's a sandbox. It's also the story of my going north to do those things. It has a beginning, a point, goals, etc. It's just not the DM's job to create that story. It's mine.

No, no confusion. I don't use Sandbox play in my games, though certainly am familiar, have played it before and not to my taste. Truthfully, I hardly "play" at all, almost entirely the DM/GM for much of 30 years or more. It's how I run games, so I just respond to others responding and misunderstanding my previous post. I'm NOT saying Sandbox is bad/wrong/fun - just not my thing. No judgement on my part.

And your thesis in the post I replied to was that a non story adventure is pointless. That it can’t be fun.

As to the previous response, no, I have no thesis, nor am declaring such. It is strictly my preference, and no judgement on any other ways to play. I'm not criticizing Sandbox, at all. I simply stated my preference in the first post - clearly stated, no hidden message or bias, but plain spoken, though obviously responders misunderstand the post. I make no such negative claim against Sandbox play, nor have any of my posts suggested that at all. I simply stated my preference to run and play rail roads. Nothing about anyone else's choice of fun.

Someone's reading into my posts, something I never said, nor would say.

And I think we were talking passed each other regarding "story", I was not saying that adventurers making the story as they participate is not a "story", rather as an author/publisher, I have no way of participating in story making, and was trying to figure out how, based my "understanding" that a story is something I write - neither of us were getting what the other was trying to say. I agree that active participation in an activity is truly "story making". I wasn't contradicting you, rather completely misunderstanding what you were saying - I was confused...

My first couple posts simply stated that I write and publish one-shot modules and personally need a "story" even if a simple one for me to build one as a potential product. I never stated any other thing, nor implied any thesis, nor declaration on a one-best way. I don't think such a thing exists at all. I just prefer as a writer to write stories. Simple. (I was trying to be helpful, not disagree with anyone).

Also simply put, it's hard to run a Sandbox in a single 4 hour session - that's the duration of adventures I write and publish. I prefer to make settings.

I've been a member on ENWorld since 2007, and have never made a judgement call of any kind in all that time, and I'm not starting here...

When I comment on any post, I have no idea on what it best about anything, only what's best for me within my experience. I make no judgements on anybody else's way to run their game - never. I was simply participating by stating "this is how I do it". That doesn't mean anything else, than how I prefer to do it. Any idea that I am trying to argue my point in any way, you're mistaken. I don't know how best to play for you, so I only state what I know. It's never a judgement or thesis of any kind - I don't care about those kinds of things... I'm not here to "win" an argument, I'm not arguing at all - nothing to argue about.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

We all hear about Railroading and Sandbox games - but there is no singular definition for either of these terms, and many people would apply them differently. Further, I don't think that every game situation we see fits neatly into these two boxes. So, I'd like to hear people brainstorm on other approaches that do not exactly fit into these boxes. As there is no singular universal definition for either of these terms, I am going to provide them for the purposes of this discussion, and will intentionally use a definition that is on the narrower side for each to make sure we have room around these points.

RAILROAD: A linear storyline where the DM forces players to follow the predesigned storyline of the adventure. To be a railroad under this definition, there must be a path for the PCs to follow, and they can't be allowed to meaningfully deviate from it, wityh course correction achieved either through planned obstacles, contrived improvised barriers, or out of game dictums by the DM. The DM drives the story.

SANDBOX: A player driven storytelling technique in which the DM presents options, but players drive the direction of the game towards whatever goals they wish. To be a sandbox under this definition, the DM can't redirect the party with barriers constructed with the intent to alter or limit their choices. The DM will drop options in front of the PCs, but the players are free to ignore the provided options and go in a very different direction if they so desire. The story is player driven.

So what doesn't fit neatly in these boxes? Here are a few things I have used or seen that might fit in broader definitions of Sandbox or Railroad, but I do not believe fit in the narrower ones I provided above.

BINGO CARD: The DM prepares a series of challenges and the players can choose which of the options they wish to pursue, but they are not free to go "off the menu" and pursue a goal not prepared for them by the DM. In these situations, the DM tends to start preparing several places the PCs might explore, and then tweaks them as the PCs advance so that they are an appropriate challenge when the PCs arrive there. The PCs have choice, but it is a multi-choice option.

CARD TRICK: The PCs are given the illusion of choice, but in the end there is no real choice when it comes to the big things. In this situation, the DM allows the players to make superficial choices, but regardless of what they choose to do, certain events will transpire at times selected by the DM that will progress one or more main storylines. For example, the PCs would be given choices like a sandbox game, but the DM will include an artifact in a treasure haul right before they hit 5th level, enemies will come looking for the item and try to steal it at 8th level (and will continue to do so until they succeed), the PCs will discover where it is by coming across clues at 11th level that indicate that they must use it, and the PCs be given their chance to use it to save the world at 17th level. The main storyline is on a railroad, but the supplemental storylines are a sandbox.

Thoughts? Other ideas that do not fit neatly into the above, or are another (perhaps better) way of thinking of Bingo Card or Card Trick?

In my experience there is no such thing as a "railroad game" or "sandbox game". Railroading and sandboxing, when viewed without any negative connotations, are modes of play that a DM can switch between while running the same game. One session might present the players more options while the next session presents them with less, but it was still the same game.

 

[gamerprinter]

I never claimed there was nor wasn't, rather I preferred running it one way than the other - no theories, just a slight preference.

 

[jgsugden]

Bingo is just variety of Railroad where the rails are invisible.

Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough, but this doesn't match what I was trying to describe.

First - there is visibility to the limitations. The DM prevents them from doing things that they come up with and keeps them eating off the menu of what he is ready to run. Thus, it is not an invisible hand, it is often quite visible.

Second, to me, rails mean you have a singular path. In a Bingo, you truly have multiple options in which you can explore, and the order of exploration can have significant impacts, but you can only choose from those options. It is more like you're on a network of streets than being on a railroad, but there are no streets that lead anywhere out of town.

 

[jgsugden]

In my experience there is no such thing as a "railroad game" or "sandbox game". Railroading and sandboxing, when viewed without any negative connotations, are modes of play that a DM can switch between while running the same game. One session might present the players more options while the next session presents them with less, but it was still the same game.

Games may switch from railroad to sandbox, and perhaps back from sandbox to railroad, but they are distinct and separate styles. I am really asking about what styles of game people might run that do not fit these specific categories, whether it is for an entire campaign, or for a subset of a campaign.

I, myself, run most campaigns as a railroad to level 5 (using this time to establish lore, move the PCs to unexplored terrain, and set storylines in motion), then a sandbox until level 17 (where I let things unfold organically around the actions of the PCs - giving them a chance to make the world better as they go), and then narrowing to a railroad for the conclusion of the campaign (with the resources they have to complete the railroad ending coming from the allies, items, and other tools acquired along the way - and the contents of that railroad partially written to reflect the world they've created through their actions).

So, if your point is that a game can switch between these styles, I do not disagree at all. However, I will mention that I find a lot of DMs tend towards one style or another for prolonged periods, if not an entire campaign (or all campaigns they run). Further, many preprinted materials restrict you to one or another style if you're going to run them substantively and substantially as written.

The old Dark Sun modules are the most 'tight' railroads I've ever seen. They do things like assume how PCs will react in a conversation, and force the story forward assuming that the PCs reacted as predicted. The DM is told to not let the PCs wander, and that they must follow a given path - period. PCs are just along for the ride until they reach the completion, or the PC dies. The players really have no choice on how to proceed. A DM running those modules has the choice of railroading, or not running the modules in the way intended vy the authors. You may argue, "Hey, a DM is always free to change things up", which is technically true ... but if the story is so tightly written as these Dark Sun modules, changing something up causes problems down the road, sometimes several modules later and in ways you would not be able to predict, which requires either very ingenious correction or substantial rewriting of the modules. (I'm a fan of Dark Sun as a distinct setting, but am highly critical that we've never had high quality adventures that flex the potential of the setting).