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

[Lanefan]

Lanefan, that sounds like Celebrim's "play set".

But I'm curious as to what you mean by pre-designed story.

Given your example of the journey through the foothills, I'm probably talking about a broader scale than you are.

In my case, the "pre-designed story" might consist of having three or four small adventure paths pre-planned, along with several stand-alone adventures and a vague backstory that might end up tying them all together if I'm lucky.

Then I'll sit down and storyboard, something like:

Adventure A ==> Adventure B ==> Adventure C (by now should know way around local region and have a clue about political history and backstory; and be average 2nd-3rd level)

split party if enough players by then

Group 1 to Adventure path D-H (thwart Ares' plans, meet some important people)

Group 2 to Adventure I ==> Adventure J ==> Adventure K if high enough level (get involved in politics, learn undead lords exist)

New group (3) does Adventure L then merges with one of the pre-existing groups? (find Zeus relic, required later in Adventure T)

etc., etc., along with a long list of throw-in adventures and side-trek ideas.

That's an example of what my pre-designed story might look like, except it would be scribbled out on a piece of paper with lots of crossings out and re-writings and overall be much less legible.

18 months later it might get re-done after Group 1 bails out during Adventure G and goes on a side trek, allowing Ares to bring his plans to fruition and thus changing the future I'd had in mind. I might also re-do it if I have better ideas later and-or the players start coming up with adventure ideas of their own.

Lan-"the storyboard for my current game is now up to version 5.0"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Well, that seems to me to rule out an adventure path as "good GMing", becaus in an adventure path the players are not free to choose who shall be their PCs' enemies and allies (except in some marginal cases). If the PCs decide to join rather than try to overthrow the evil cult, the adventure path grinds to a halt.

I know, from experience, that this is not so in my game, because in my game there is no predetermined "final enemy/BBEG".

Well, that's not entirely true though. For example, in the Savage Tide AP, you could take, right off the bat, essentially two paths. If you took the "good" path, then certain factions and NPC's would react to you in a certain way, and if you took the "evil" path, different opportunities and NPC's opened up.

Granted, the "evil" path was a lot less fleshed out, mostly because the presumption (and page count) was that players would take the high road. But, it was certainly there.

The funny thing is, you'd still hit pretty much the same adventures, but, the theme and actions within those adventures would be totally different.

So, I do disagree that an AP requires you to follow such a narrowly defined path. There are AP's out there that allow a great deal of freedom, even though you're still likely to progress through the same locations.

 

[the Jester]

This is so, so wrong.

Care to define "story-based"?

First of all, in a discussion with a large component about making the definitions, your "so, so wrong" is really out of line IMHO. If you want to wave the "I do it right and you're having badwrongfun" flag around, I'll rapidly disengage from discussing this stuff with you. Likewise, if you assert that your definitions win!!1!!eleventyone!! without discussion, that's fine- you win the thread, go home.

But I'll assume that you want to have a meaningful discussion, so I'll go ahead and respond this time. I said:

I would argue that (using my definitions) a good story-based game does not have to be linear but it cannot be a sandbox. A sandbox may well have various plot lines running through it, as a story-based game must. A sandbox can have linear adventures in it- any adventure that is a sequence of rooms in a certain order is linear, and as long as the pcs choose to follow that sequence it can still be a sandbox.

So let me give more specific concrete examples, using published adventures.

An example of a sandbox published adventure is the Secret of Bone Hill, which presents a region of an island, a full town, several dungeons and other adventure areas, etc. There are various plot threads running through the module- but there is no overarching mission that the pcs must engage in, there is no "end boss" or end goal to the module, etc. The clerics running the temple of gambling have as much detail as the npc spy in town; the assumption is that the pcs will move through the module interacting with various persons and creatures, exploring locations, etc., but there is no stick whacking them if they stray off the path.

I think we can all agree this is a sandbox adventure.

A linear adventure is just that: 1-2-3-4. There is a distinct sequence of events and the pcs cannot deviate from that sequence and still 'finish' the adventure. Good examples include many delves,

A story-based adventure is one where the considerations of the story outweigh the input of the players. The early DragonLance modules are especially egregious this way, but there are other examples too- hello Avatar trilogy!

A linear adventure can be set in a sandbox and work just fine as long as the pcs have the option to disengage from it. If the pcs are going into a delve with 3 rooms that are sequential, 1-2-3, and the pcs decide not to venture into room 2 after finishing up room 1, that's a sign of sandbox style dming.

In a story-based linear campaign, the pcs wouldn't be able to accomplish anything else until they got the macguffin that they were after.

A story-based non-linear campaign is one where, instead of going 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8, the pcs starts at 1 and ends at 8 but the stuff in the middle is largely up to the players. For instance, Red Hand of Doom can be a good example of a non-linear story-based campaign. The test is, Can the pcs walk away from this adventure? If the answer is yes (even if the decision later comes back to haunt them), I smell sandboxery. If the answer is no- then I smell a story-based campaign, where the dm's story is more important than the free choices of the players.

So: Linear is a style choice related to but not the same as railroading/story-based games/adventure paths/what have you.

As in all cases, none of these things are strictly one way or the other, or at least it is very rare to see a campaign that is "all sandbox all the time" or "completely story".

YMMV etc.

 

[pawsplay]

But that's what I do - add stuff responsively. I don't think it's a characterisation sandbox - it's not about exploring characters, it's about building them and testing them.

I'm really struggling to see the distinction. Character-testing is practically a synonym for character exploration, as nearly as I can see.

I'm not a big fan of presenting the two approaches as dichotomous, because this tends to crowd out recognition of other approaches to play that I prefer.

How so? Start a thread on a hybrid approach, see what happens.

Upthread The Shaman described well some similarities and some differences between the games that s/he (I think he?) and I run. I think The Shaman's game has a strong exploration element - the players develop their PCs in part by finding useful contacts/opportunities in the gameworld. This makes it a sandbox, to my mind.

In my game, the players don't have to search for contacts and opportunities. They know I will throw these at them. The play consists in working out how to respond to these NPCs and situations - where the "working out" isn't normally a tactical/strategic working out, but a thematic/moral working out.

Tactical-strategic play is not, per se, sandboxing. "We found a dragon guarding gold, and because of our greed, were slain," is, in theory, an acceptable sandbox outcome. While others may disagree, I think adding elements responsively does tend to decrease sandbox qualities in a game, but if the aim is still to present plausible and interesting scenarios that result in exploration, I think we are still talking about a basically sanxbox approach.

 

[Ariosto]

A linear adventure is just that: 1-2-3-4. There is a distinct sequence of events and the pcs cannot deviate from that sequence and still 'finish' the adventure. Good examples include many delves,

Where I demur is that I consider that there are degrees of linearity. One pattern can approximate a single line, albeit a fuzzy one, more closely than another.

A story-based non-linear campaign is one where, instead of going 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8, the pcs starts at 1 and ends at 8 but the stuff in the middle is largely up to the players.

What I have seen more often than either of those is more like 1 - (interlude) - 2 - 3 - (interlude) - 4 - etc..

It may be a fine academic point to come up with a large lexicon for different amounts and kinds of branching, but the fundamental question remains, "Is there a plot or not?".

Every history is strictly linear after the fact! What matters is the shape of the universe of possibilities before we select one.

The architectural linearity of a space does not necessarily mean linearity of action. In the last resort, what matters is whether we can get out of that structure and remain in the game.

If it's the Tomb of Horrors or nothing, then the game is the Tomb of Horrors. That can have a lot of twists and turns in events -- but they are limited to the (pretty linear) confines of those chambers plus a camp outside.

If the Tomb of Horrors just happens to be located on a larger map, as for instance a shopping mall is on the map of a city, then neither Tomb nor Mall constitutes "the adventure". Rather, what each of those is, is a place.

The places are elements in an environment rather than a plot. "The adventure" (or "the campaign") is not a program through which the GM is stepping. "The adventure" is whatever players are undertaking, whatever is going on right now while we are playing.

It is like playing The Russian Campaign instead of Squad Leader. In The Russian Campaign, you decide where to move your pieces turn by turn over a big swathe of the Eurasian continent. In Squad Leader, just crossing the street is an accomplishment!

 

[Starfox]

My interest in this thread isn't "Railroading is badwrongfun." or "Sandboxing is badwrongfun.", but rather in getting people to see that the two preparation and play approaches are both just tools that a skilled DM can employ to achieve a particular result for a particular party.

Where I demur is that I consider that there are degrees of linearity. One pattern can approximate a single line, albeit a fuzzy one, more closely than another.

Continuing on the line presented in the two quotes, using a painting analogy.

As a GM, I have a palette of tools. Many of these are like colors; they come in different shades. One such tool is plot structure - it comes from very light (sandbox) to very heavy (linear or railroad). Depending on the needs of my story at the moment, I might use a light shade of plot or a heavy shade of plot. Sometimes, I essentially don't have a plot. But these are tools on my palette; they do not define me as a GM no more than orange defines William Turner as a painter.

Of course some GMs have common styles and themes they return to, just like the orange skies of William Turner. But it does not mean we cannot do some different things outside our normal scale of shades.

Nor does the shades we use make us good or bad GMs. Just as a white or black painting is generally less interesting than one with more detail, it is generally good to avoid the extremes of plot freedom or linearity. But there are no absolutes. No badwrongfun.

 

[Janx]

Railroad just means it's easy to run. Like the above poster indicates, it varies by group.

It could be argued that if every character in the group stays together and follows any plot whatsoever, that's a railroad.

I suspect it is quite the opposite. The railroad DM (and I mean one using negative DM behaviors) is probably struggling to keep the game going, and is constantly having to figure out how to keep his party on track.

 

[pemerton]

I'm really struggling to see the distinction. Character-testing is practically a synonym for character exploration, as nearly as I can see.

Maybe. For me, "exploration" tends to presuppose something already there to explore - in this case, a character - whereas I'm happy for my game to involve building and testing the PCs. The PCs have a backstory which is part of the input, but their character isn't something pregiven - it is something that emerges out of play.

While others may disagree, I think adding elements responsively does tend to decrease sandbox qualities in a game, but if the aim is still to present plausible and interesting scenarios that result in exploration, I think we are still talking about a basically sanxbox approach.

I agree with you that adding elements responsively reduces sandboxing. But I don't think it therefore increases linearity/railroading (not necessarily, at least).

I'll proceed by reference to the following quote:

Every history is strictly linear after the fact! What matters is the shape of the universe of possibilities before we select one.

<snip>


If it's the Tomb of Horrors or nothing, then the game is the Tomb of Horrors. That can have a lot of twists and turns in events -- but they are limited to the (pretty linear) confines of those chambers plus a camp outside.

If the Tomb of Horrors just happens to be located on a larger map, as for instance a shopping mall is on the map of a city, then neither Tomb nor Mall constitutes "the adventure". Rather, what each of those is, is a place.

I envisage a sandbox as permitting the players to explore, via their PCs, more-or-less well-defined places.

In a responsive game, this isn't the case, as the places aren't just waiting there to explore. Instead they are introduced (not exclusively, but in the way I play mostly, by the GM) in response to actions taken by the players.

That's why I don't think of it as a sandbox.

But it is not linear, because - before the fact - no one knows which places will be visited or what will take place. That is because as a GM I can't respond until the players have their PCs do something - and because I don't always know what this will be, I don't always know what my response will be.

Start a thread on a hybrid approach, see what happens.

Well, I've tried to bring it up a few times in this thread and the "GM by the nose thread", including with actual play examples and an illustrative quote from Paul Czege. But only The Shaman seems really to have picked up on the point.

I should also add - I don't see the way I play as anything very radical in practice. I'm sure that lots of others run similar games. It's only at the level of describing or theoretically analysing what is going on that brings out the difference from sandboxes and linearity/railroading.

I think it is more like a sandbox than it is a linear game, because player choices drive the direction of play. But the responsive aspect on the part of the GM is quite different from a paradigmatic sandbox. In some ways its closer to No Myth, although I do use a degree of backstory that pure No Myth would eschew.

 

[Ariosto]

But the responsive aspect on the part of the GM is quite different from a paradigmatic sandbox.

Please, could you recap what the quite different "responsive aspect of the GM" is?

I also wonder, what is your source for the paradigm of what you consider a paradigmatic sandbox?

 

[pemerton]

Ariosto, my sense of the paradigm is based on posts on a number of threads - recently, the "GM by the nose" and "Railroading is a pejorative term" threads. I think exploration is crucial to it.

The sort of responsiveness I was talking about is the GM developing things and introducing game elements based not on ingame causal logic but metagaming logic, the idea being to keep the thematic pressure up to the players. This is at odds, I think, with exploration - because the GM is manipulating motives and backstory behind the scenes - and hence, I think, at odds with sandboxing.