Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DragonLancer" data-source="post: 9641001" data-attributes="member: 11868">I've never much liked the sandbox/open world play style. As a player I get bored, or more accurately I get lost. I much prefer to have a story that I can follow and learn as I go. It's just how I prefer to play.&nbsp; As a Dungeon Master, I was brought into the hobby and raised (as it were) with the concept that a campaign was a story going forward. It has one off side adventures here and there but you follow a story created and moulded by the DM. I find it much easier and more enjoyable to DM (and play) campaigns like that.I have run many of Paizo's adventure paths which follow the linear route. I don't consider them rail roaded because although have set goals, locations and the like, the players can use their own initiative which a good DM can use guide them. Often players can find another way around it if they don't follow what is in the book. I've seen it myself with my own players. So long as the DM goes along and modifies things along the way, you have a good campaign. It's only when the DM knuckles down and you can't deviate from the written plot that it becomes a railroad.So, in my mind, the sandbox/open world approach can have that storyline but everything is largely left to the players. They decide where they go, who they talk to, if they want too get involved in that potential plotline, and they work with the consequences of their action or inaction. The linear approach has a fixed storyline in writing with hooks to follow and it is expected the players will follow them but they have freedom to follow those hooks how they will.I know what I prefer from both sides of the DM screen but ultimately neither of them are bad/wrong, and as long as everyone is enjoying their game sessions both styles can exist side by side.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DragonLancer, post: 9641001, member: 11868"] I've never much liked the sandbox/open world play style. As a player I get bored, or more accurately I get lost. I much prefer to have a story that I can follow and learn as I go. It's just how I prefer to play. As a Dungeon Master, I was brought into the hobby and raised (as it were) with the concept that a campaign was a story going forward. It has one off side adventures here and there but you follow a story created and moulded by the DM. I find it much easier and more enjoyable to DM (and play) campaigns like that. I have run many of Paizo's adventure paths which follow the linear route. I don't consider them rail roaded because although have set goals, locations and the like, the players can use their own initiative which a good DM can use guide them. Often players can find another way around it if they don't follow what is in the book. I've seen it myself with my own players. So long as the DM goes along and modifies things along the way, you have a good campaign. It's only when the DM knuckles down and you can't deviate from the written plot that it becomes a railroad. So, in my mind, the sandbox/open world approach can have that storyline but everything is largely left to the players. They decide where they go, who they talk to, if they want too get involved in that potential plotline, and they work with the consequences of their action or inaction. The linear approach has a fixed storyline in writing with hooks to follow and it is expected the players will follow them but they have freedom to follow those hooks how they will. I know what I prefer from both sides of the DM screen but ultimately neither of them are bad/wrong, and as long as everyone is enjoying their game sessions both styles can exist side by side. [/QUOTE]

Verification