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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5401727" data-attributes="member: 8835">It has stayed fairly diplomatic, considering its length.  Though Umbran may have a point that we keep re-hashing that the other guy doesn't get it.I have a very specific definition of railroading.  Mainly to flag it as OMG, don't do that regardless of play-style.Ken Hite in the OP basically implied by his apparent definition that NOT railroading, a sandbox led to stagnation, which meant nothing got done.While I'm not a sandbox fan (namely in that I don't want to do the work I think I need to do to run one, nor am I confident in the results of doing so), I still think Hite's quote is BS.Just as somebody's cure for Stagnation is to RR them to action.  I don't define it nore recognize the cure.Stagnation is when the PCs aren't accomplishing anything, to their own detriment of fun.  The cure is to bring in stimulous to get them to react, and hopefully be pro-active after dealing with the stimulous.  A minor Threat, like an orc patrol coming upon then whilst they argue about the best way to enter the dungeon, for instance.That's not RR.  Nor does it force an outcome or force them towards anything else.  it simply spurs them to SOME action, and might reveal new information and Opportunity.I'm a lazy DM.  I don't want to generate too much material.  So I ask my players what they're goals are, and examine their backstories. I then generate one or two Opportunities or Threats that I think they'll go for (and my group tends to do so).  I build enough material to fulfill them pursuing that goal. Yes, I assume they'll succeed, but that's just a handy tool to determine what content they'd need next to get to their goal.If the PCs said no, they don't want to pursue the Opportunity or Threat, I guess I'm screwed.  I'd have to apologize and say, "well, I need to revise things.  What DO you want to do, since you aren't interested in X?"If the PCs are going the "wrong" direction, and I only mean "wrong" in the sense of they want to go to cuba, but are going North" I will relay, in game or out of game, new clues or blatant GM advice that what they're doing doesn't seem to be moving them to their chosen goal.  Also not RR, as I'm simply giving them more info, and even verifying that their goal has not actually changed.On the point of Apocalyptic adventures, not be mean, but only and idiot GM runs an adventure where player failure causes an unrecoverable change in the campaign world.  Basically, if you're not sure your PCs will work to stop the apocalypse (and not just because they want it to happen), then don't run a game where if they go surfing, the world ends.When you run a game where the PCS HAVE to deal with it, you've got risk of negative world impact.  If you can't accept that, then lower the stakes or be prepared to have NPCs deal with it.  The "war to save the day by NPCs" can be a backdrop to the PCs actions, rather than be the PCs adventure.There are non-RR ways to deal with stuff in sandbox or "narrow scope" styles.If you don't want the PCs to get side-tracked, don't present them with more Opportunities or Threats than they are able to handle.  The whole planet x,y and z thing wouldn't happen if the PCs didn't KNOW there was a counter-offer.  if the PCs are going to the next story element, don't mess with it.If you want to do a cool speeder bike chase in the forest and they're about to go to Endor, don't freaking tell them they can get a better deal on Tatooine.Lastly, something I've just pondered.  It may not be functionally useful to consider a dungeon as a sandbox.  It is a place, where for practical purposes, once entered, the PCs will enter rooms and kill stuff until they achieve their goal.  Regardless of play style (all but the worst GM, anyway), they all run about the same.  In truth, because the choices are so limited.  Choose a direction, enter a room.  or don't.The tricky part, that sandbox style debates would be better to endorse/explain is the concept of how the party gets started into doing ANYTHING MEANINGFUL.  The sandbox/narrative difference starts with assumptions about how the party learns about their adventuring choices and what they do.  The dungeon's such a narrow and small thing, that its not really relevant.  it runs itself.  What's tricky is how and why does the party get to the dungeon, and what could they be doing if they didn't go there.</blockquote>

Verification