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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5298249" data-attributes="member: 55271">The first problem seems to be that "sandbox" is being treated as the opposite of "railroad".But "railroad" is actually the opposite of "non-linear adventure design". And it is, specifically, the extreme opposite in which the players are forced to follow the linear design of the adventure. (For a more detailed discussion of this issue, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/279102-why-i-dislike-term-railroading-14.html#post5229268" target="_blank">read this</a>.)Which leads us to the second problem: Ariosto tends to assume that all linear design is a railroad. This is not a useful generalization.Your example demonstrates both points: First, it's a linear design (PCs find out mentor is in trouble; PCs go to investigate mentor's house; PCs save mentor), but it's unlikely to turn into a railroad because (a) you're willing to let them just ignore it; (b) if the PCs pick up the adventure seed, it's pretty easy to guess what their actions will be; and (c) there's no reason an unexpected approach to the problem (a divination spell instead of investigating the mentor's home, for example) would cause the scenario to stop working.Second, even if the scenario were to turn into a railroad after the PCs decide to rescue their mentor, there's nothing about the scenario which is incompatible with a sandbox. Sandboxes can (and perhaps even should) be dynamic and active places. The PCs need to be free to go out and do what they want to do, but that doesn't mean that the world is never going to come to them.</blockquote>

Verification