"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[Beginning of the End]

Then you don't know what is, in my humble opinion.

Are you seriously suggesting that the advice to not let the adventurers find what you haven't created is railroading?

I think this is open to some legitimate debate. Saying "you can't find X no matter what you do" is certainly a railroading technique.

But given the full context of how Gygax designed his campaigns (with dungeons that constantly shifted and changed when you weren't looking at them), this particular application looks more like "they can't find it because it doesn't exist yet; if some sort of explanation is later demanded, here's a retcon you can use".

And failing to find something because it doesn't exist wouldn't be railroading.

So, it comes to page 12 of a conversation, and still folks are saying to each other that they don't know what the subject even is?

Classic.

Gray areas are gray; people disagree about them. Film at 11.

 

[Remathilis]

Then you don't know what is, in my humble opinion.

Are you seriously suggesting that the advice to not let the adventurers find what you haven't created is railroading.

Yes.

Does it limit a PCs legitimate choices in a given scenario? (IE Search the area, find the dungeon)?
Does it create a bottle-neck for the adventure the DM has prepped over what the PCs have chosen to do?
Is it done for an out-of-game, rather than in-game reason?
Is it explained in the world via a handwave that cannot be detected, dispelled, or otherwise affected by the PCs?

How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"? Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this is open to some legitimate debate.

I agree. There is an element of intent involved, but IMHO once you've decided that the Caves are there, they are there....whether you are ready or not.

Gray areas are gray; people disagree about them. Film at 11.

Overall, very good post, and sorry I couldn't XP you.


RC

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes.

Does it limit a PCs legitimate choices in a given scenario? (IE Search the area, find the dungeon)?
Does it create a bottle-neck for the adventure the DM has prepped over what the PCs have chosen to do?
Is it done for an out-of-game, rather than in-game reason?
Is it explained in the world via a handwave that cannot be detected, dispelled, or otherwise affected by the PCs?

How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"? Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?

"Can" and "should" are what are in question here. The DM does a lot of work, is it right that the players should expect him to do more just because they want to go in X direction?

Sure, the DM can wing it, but I highly doubt it's going to be as good as what he had planned.

Which begs the question: if the choices of the PCs make the game sub-par, should the DM indulge them?

Which further begs: if players decisions should always be indulged, what is the point in creating any content for them, if the game is always going to give them what they want?

 

[the Jester]

My worlds typically have too many loose threads/possible activities rather than too few. Every so often the players feel overwhelmed with choice and have to make some hard decisions about where to focus.

I think that this is another mark of a good sandbox, or at least a good indication that you're in a campaign that tends towards the sandbox end of the 'railroad-rowboat' spectrum.

Player choice is meaningless without things to choose between, after all.

From my current group, which is 8th-10th level, here are a few of the dangling threads they have going:

• Find this ogre that stole some info from the wizard's tower and seems to have it in for them
• Slay a radioactive hydra as a final initiation before being allowed into a secret organization
• Work on building up their stronghold
• Work on improving the small nation they are building
• Journey south to investigate this secret cult (which is connected to that ogre)
• Journey south to a residuum tasting
• Journey east to meet the liege that they are under
• Hunt down remnants of the mercenary company that tried to take over their nation
• Try to find the troll king rising in the fens to the north
• Finish dealing with the Garden of Graves (they are currently in the middle of this one)
• Try to find the secret spy for the yuan-ti that they know is in their territory
• Try to hunt the hag that tried to catch the soul of one of the pcs when she died
• Explore a chasm opened by an earthquake that has goblins, duergar and undead (at least) underneath it
• Do something about these wererats and purple dragon that they got defeated by early in the campaign
• Seek out a phoenix that they saw in the distance in the mountains to the west

I'm certain that there are other plot hooks dangling around, too- not to mention that they can do something else entirely, and my groups often do. I like having a vast world with lots going on, and I like that the players choose to explore different areas.

 

[Beginning of the End]

"Can" and "should" are what are in question here. The DM does a lot of work, is it right that the players should expect him to do more just because they want to go in X direction?

In a sandbox campaign, the answer to that question is pretty much definitionally "yes".

How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"? Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?

With that being said, ideological purity is overrated.

Take the West Marches, for example. A rule was imposed that the characters in the campaign had to explore the frontier. Is that less sandbox-y than a campaign in which players could abandon the frontier and go back to civilization? Sure. Is it particularly accurate to say, therefore, that the West Marches isn't a sandbox campaign? Not really.

And even if we want to embrace that ideological purity, "winging it" may not be the preferred method for dealing with "I want to go south" or "I want to go to civilization".

For example, my preferred response to that scenario is generally to say, "Let's take a break." Depending on the amount of prep required that break can range anywhere from 15 minutes to "see you next week".

 

[prosfilaes]

I'm cheating a little: the module mentioned by CleverNickname was Test of the Warlords, a classic Champion D&D module which begins with the king offering you a piece of land in Norworld (medieval Norway) and all you got to do is clear it out and make it inhabitable for the civilized folks, and you get to be declared Jarl of it. Its for high level PCs (15+) and its got a good mix of politics, dungeons, and even mass combat in it.

Stealing from the guy WHOSE ABOUT TO GIVE YOU LAND pretty much sabotages the whole plot, doesn't it? If it was, say, Tomb of Horrors or something, I might've agreed.

If you're a pickpocket, why would you want to be exiled from civilization? You're seeing this as the King is giving them a huge gift, but whether deliberately or in practice, he's exiling them to a far part of the world where they may die, or may clean up a problem area for the king and afterwards they will be tied up where the King doesn't have to worry about the threat to his power. Heck, the King doesn't even "own" the land he's giving them; possession on the ground, from your description, is with uncivilized folks, and if the King can't suppress them, the PCs probably could have gone up there, taken the land, and proclaimed themselves King, with the old King not being able to do anything about it.

If we created characters to run this module, I would be deeply frustrated if a player chose to make a pickpocket. But if we're talking preexisting characters, asking them to be exiled from civilization to do the king's work and take on the responsibility for a bunch of commoners is a big request that many characters just may not be interested in.

 

[Sunseeker]

In a sandbox campaign, the answer to that question is pretty much definitionally "yes".

Which, as my other questions asked, raised the following.

Why should players be allowed to have that expectation? And why should the DM bother to plan or prepare anything, if he knows players can just walk away from it any time they like?

Even if the DM is not a PC in the game, the DM is still playing the game with everyone else. If the incentive for players to play this sandbox is because they can do anything because the DM will create it for them, what is the DM's incentive? To do more work?

That hardly seems like a good incentive.

 

[The Shaman]

I think this is open to some legitimate debate. Saying "you can't find X no matter what you do" is certainly a railroading technique.

True.

But given the full context of how Gygax designed his campaigns (with dungeons that constantly shifted and changed when you weren't looking at them), this particular application looks more like "they can't find it because it doesn't exist yet; if some sort of explanation is later demanded, here's a retcon you can use".

And failing to find something because it doesn't exist wouldn't be railroading.

Which is the point I hastily and inartfully tried to make.

 

[The Shaman]

Or another way to look at it: 'Does anyone at the table care?'

If everyone in the game is down with going to planet Y and doing the mission thing and you're all having fun, it doesn't need a label. It's functional, it's fun, it's play.

Railroading, in the sense of 'bad', is disagreement at the table about the amount of freedom the players can exercise on play. In that sense your example is undefined.

"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "

AAARGH!