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

[Hussar]

Pem - would it be fair to say that the more the DM changes the setting in accordance with the characters being played, the further that campaign strays from being a sandbox?

Just trying to see if I'm following you right.

 

[The Shaman]

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

A player creates a character who is deathly afraid of snakes, so when the adventurers discover a lost tomb in the desert, the referee decides it's filled with asps and cobras. If the character was afraid of spiders, then it might be full of tarantulas instead.

Did I get that right, pemerton?

 

[the Jester]

Where I demur is that I consider that there are degrees of linearity.

Oh, absolutely- for instance, if a linear adventure assumes 1-2-3-4, maybe 2 is a whole dungeon that is largely nonlinear but the final chamber must still be breached in order to 'move forward'.

Pem - would it be fair to say that the more the DM changes the setting in accordance with the characters being played, the further that campaign strays from being a sandbox?

I would totally agree with that, at least outside of setting changes caused by the pcs, e.g. the Baron of Restenford is dead because the pcs killed him.

The snakes vs. spiders example is a pretty perfect illustration of a non-sandbox playstyle approach imho (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that!).

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Emergence during play is a trait of exploration, in contrast to thematics, which are intended from the beginning.

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 suppose it's possible someone is responsive, but does so randomly and not toward any distinct end. But I think I feel pretty comfortable saying that responsiveness has a tendency to decrease sandboxiness and increase linearlity.

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.

Again, my suggestion is to start a new thread. Trying to attack a sideline during a discussion tends to draw more resistance than engagement.

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 disagree. I think a great many games are easily categorized as one or the other, and further, that hybrid games have a fairly distinct character as well. I think where these discussions tend to miss is that many people assume linearality and sandbox games are extremes, when I think they are a natural paradigm across a variety of specific GMing styles.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose it's possible someone is responsive, but does so randomly and not toward any distinct end. But I think I feel pretty comfortable saying that responsiveness has a tendency to decrease sandboxiness and increase linearlity.

As a tendency, I think I'd agree. Although there could pretty easily be exceptions - the player expresses a wish to go exploring, so the DM stuffs a great big empty place to go explore, just as an off the top of my head example.

But, I think it may be better to say that responsiveness on the part of the DM will increase the chances that the players will go in a particular direction. If the players want X and you give them X, then in all likelihood, X is what you're going to do.

It's not railroading, but, that other thing which I've never seen a good name for, when the characters still have choices, but the situation is created in such a way that the most likely choice is predictable.

 

[pemerton]

A player creates a character who is deathly afraid of snakes, so when the adventurers discover a lost tomb in the desert, the referee decides it's filled with asps and cobras. If the character was afraid of spiders, then it might be full of tarantulas instead.

Did I get that right, pemerton?

Yes, that's right. And when one of the PCs is a cleric of the Raven Queen then the cultists will be Orcus, not Zehir. And one of the PCs is described as an orphan, then the prisoner/slave will in fact be his long lost mother. Etc etc.

Pem - would it be fair to say that the more the DM changes the setting in accordance with the characters being played, the further that campaign strays from being a sandbox?

That's my view, because under these circumstances there is less and less exploration.

The snakes vs. spiders example is a pretty perfect illustration of a non-sandbox playstyle approach imho (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that!).

I agree. That's why I wouldn't normally describe my game as a sandbox.

I suppose it's possible someone is responsive, but does so randomly and not toward any distinct end. But I think I feel pretty comfortable saying that responsiveness has a tendency to decrease sandboxiness and increase linearlity.

I agree that it is not a sandbox. It doesn't increase linearity (as characterised earlier in this thread, along the lines of "predetermined resolution") because there is no predetermined resolution. Will the PC flee from the snakes or face up to his fear? Will the cleric of the Raven Queen fight the cult, or join them? Will the orphan rescue his mother, or sacrifice her in the course of defeating the cult? No one knows until we actually play the game!

 

[Nagol]

Yes, that's right. And when one of the PCs is a cleric of the Raven Queen then the cultists will be Orcus, not Zehir. And one of the PCs is described as an orphan, then the prisoner/slave will in fact be his long lost mother. Etc etc.

That's my view, because under these circumstances there is less and less exploration.


I agree. That's why I wouldn't normally describe my game as a sandbox.


I agree that it is not a sandbox. It doesn't increase linearity (as characterised earlier in this thread, along the lines of "predetermined resolution") because there is no predetermined resolution. Will the PC flee from the snakes or face up to his fear? Will the cleric of the Raven Queen fight the cult, or join them? Will the orphan rescue his mother, or sacrifice her in the course of defeating the cult? No one knows until we actually play the game!

One final clarification if I may ask: Let's suppose the test is snakes and the prisoner is the mom of the orphan. The PC flees the scene and never penetrates to find anythng past that first room. Does the prisoner stop being the mom or do the consequences play out for the unrescued prisoner?

 

[pemerton]

Nagol, it might depend a bit on other stuff - for example, if the PC has rumours that his mum is imprisoned in the desert temple of Orcus, then that has to be accounted for somehow (which might include it turning out to be a false rumour).

But basically the answer is the first, not the second - ie consequences don't play out for the unrescued prisoner unless there is some compelling reason to do that - for example, it might be interesting to confront that PC with the price of his cowardice.

This is why I say my approach has some resemblance to No Myth. Unlike pure No Myth I do prep in advance, in part because I find it hard to come up with anything too intricate on the fly (and my players like intricate) and in part because 4e's action resolution likes prep. But the basic idea of No Myth - that the world has no reality outside what has actually been revealed in play - is the approach that I adopt. So while I may have my backstory all nicely written up, I will happily change it during the course of play if doing so (i) won't disturb anything that has been revealed in play and (ii) will make the game interesting along the sort of line I'm describing.

Again, I think that this is not really a sandbox approach to play, because it is not about exploration. But like I've been reiterating, it is not linear in the sense of a pre-determined outcome, because there is no pre-determined outcome.

Again to reiterate, I don't play with quite the same hardcore spirit that Paul Czege describes in the quote I posted upthread, but I do play in something like that way - the situations are tailored by me to engage the players, and I keep that engagement in mind as they unfold, but the resolution isn't known until the players and I jointly find out where we end up - which partially depends on our choices during play and partially on the whims of the dice used for action resolution.

 

[pawsplay]

I agree that it is not a sandbox. It doesn't increase linearity (as characterised earlier in this thread, along the lines of "predetermined resolution") because there is no predetermined resolution. Will the PC flee from the snakes or face up to his fear? Will the cleric of the Raven Queen fight the cult, or join them? Will the orphan rescue his mother, or sacrifice her in the course of defeating the cult? No one knows until we actually play the game!

There certainly is increased linearality. If I know a PC is afraid of snakes, and I include snakes, I've decided we will definitely be addressing that theme. That is obviously a non-random situation that has nothing to do with an imaginary world and everthing with my preference for a particular story element. The advantage of such an approach is that it is focused. The disadvantage is that it is distinctly biased, which means playing to GM and player preferences and away from the unknown. The fact that I create space for the unkown ("Will the PC flee?..." etc etc) does not negate the fact that I have the PC on a linear path toward an encounter of my preference, with a range of possible outcomes that is substantially more predictable than an encounter with less tailored content.

 

[Nagol]

There certainly is increased linearality. If I know a PC is afraid of snakes, and I include snakes, I've decided we will definitely be addressing that theme. That is obviously a non-random situation that has nothing to do with an imaginary world and everthing with my preference for a particular story element. The advantage of such an approach is that it is focused. The disadvantage is that it is distinctly biased, which means playing to GM and player preferences and away from the unknown. The fact that I create space for the unkown ("Will the PC flee?..." etc etc) does not negate the fact that I have the PC on a linear path toward an encounter of my preference, with a range of possible outcomes that is substantially more predictable than an encounter with less tailored content.

I don't see it linear in the sense of situation A will lead to B which will be resolved in situation C.

What is happening is the 'solution space' of possible situations is being normalised against the player preferences.

When running CHAMPIONS superheroic campaigns, such normalisation is effectively codified in the rules. The players and GM negotiate how frequently a power limitation (cost reducer) and character disadvantage (extra points for character design) will appear in game.

If a character takes "afraid of snakes, irrational action, common" then snakes will appear in up to 1/2 of the situations that character finds himself. The character may still run into spiders instead, but it is likely more rare because of the bias on snakes for situations.

What changes it from a sandbox in my mind is the NoMyth fluidity of the universe once a element has been placed.