D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Mort]

Odd, I thought Sandbox Style was just doing what the players wanted. The idea is the players lead and the DM follows, right?

No, a classic sandbox is having all of the areas, NPCs etc. already set. The PCs then can wander freely and encounter them, but they are constrained by what the DM has placed.

Now, done well/properly the PCs will act as dominoes/ripples and much of what they do will change how the surroundings respond so it will be a very different experience depending on who the PCs are and what they do.

 

[bloodtide]

I rather feel that in a functional improv style the details that the players pick up should be made to matter. So if a throwaway line makes the players suspect that something shady is going on in the old abbey, then when players decide to investigate it the GM makes it so that something interesting is going on there, even though they had not initially though that.

This is just a normal DM move. Most of the time most players are quite flat and don't engage much with the game. So in those rare moments where they do suddenly go "oh wow, there is something over there! Wow! Wow! Wow!", the DM should always feed that fire.

You obviously misread what I said. I stated all of those are decision making points by the players. Hence, they can choose to keep the gem. Now, they are the ones hunted by the mummy. They may ditch the gem then to some shady dealer. Great, the mummy still wants them dead or the GM decides something else. This can still be written as a linear adventure, yet it is still player choices.

But is it enough?

No matter what "choice" the players make, the DM will react. So are players really fine with simply making one choice and then letting the DM do whatever they want? Does the DM get a free pass, just as the players made a choice?

I hear and agree, but what that really means is we need to eliminate the term all together. Because if that is the case, I have never ever played in a game, out of my 30+ years, that met the definition of linear or railroad according to you. In fact, no one has, unless you are playing with the worst GM ever, which is doubtful. I mean, even young GMs, like middle and high school age, allow player choices to impact the course of events.

I think the big problem here is so many players want Cinematic Style. They watch a great many action adventure type movies. And way, way, way too many of the movies are very poorly written. As such so many movies have main characters doing the dumbest things ever.....and they work every time. The character saves the world and all they did was put a bucket on their head and act like a blithering idiot. Players watch this and go "WOW! I wanna do that in my next RPG game!"

No, a classic sandbox is having all of the areas, NPCs etc. already set. The PCs then can wander freely and encounter them, but they are constrained by what the DM has placed.

Now, done well/properly the PCs will act as dominoes/ripples and much of what they do will change how the surroundings respond so it will be a very different experience depending on who the PCs are and what they do.

So if the PCs randomly wander and freely encounter something, but whatever the do has little or no effect on the plot or plan, is that a railroad? Say the PCs randomly encounter the Group of Darkness that is planning to attack the Temple of Light. The PCs randomly attack the Group of Darkness, even kill the leader. But this really effect nothing as the Group of Darkness will just get a new leader and continue on with the plan to attack the Temple of Light. Because the PCs never took any direct action to stop that plot from happening.

 

[Mort]

So if the PCs randomly wander and freely encounter something, but whatever the do has little or no effect on the plot or plan, is that a railroad? Say the PCs randomly encounter the Group of Darkness that is planning to attack the Temple of Light. The PCs randomly attack the Group of Darkness, even kill the leader. But this really effect nothing as the Group of Darkness will just get a new leader and continue on with the plan to attack the Temple of Light. Because the PCs never took any direct action to stop that plot from happening.

Well in a true Sandbox there is no "plot." Usually things progress based on a natural progression (usually based on what the DM thinks should happen, especially if the PCs aren't involved, but not always - methods differ). And of course, where ever the PCs are they usually wander into and disrupt and break stuff and cause waves from there.

 

[Scott Christian]

Really, Never?

I once had a DM who would literally keep referring to the book (fiction book not adventure book) he was cribbing the adventure from. If we did ANYTHING that deviated from the plot of the book he would just ignore/discount it and continue with the plot of the book.

The sad thing is, this was in our mid 20s, not some grade school newbie ordeal/experiment.

I was responding to the definition I was given.

I just think people are using words weirdly. If there are many meaningful decisions that impact what course the events take, then it is not linear or a railroad!

And in that definition, there is no railroad or linear that I have seen.

Per your example, did that DM let you sneak by the guards as opposed to fighting them? That could "impact the course of events," Particularly if he had the guards hear a noise in the next room and appear there instead of in the initial room.

In that sense, I have never seen it in all my years of playing. I have seen GMs do out of line things and do silly improv things that have ruined continuity. But nothing that meets that definition.

 

[Mort]

I was responding to the definition I was given.

And in that definition, there is no railroad or linear that I have seen.

Per your example, did that DM let you sneak by the guards as opposed to fighting them? That could "impact the course of events," Particularly if he had the guards hear a noise in the next room and appear there instead of in the initial room.

It was a LONG time ago, but from what I remember no. If the book had a fight with the guards, then NOTHING we could do would prevent that fight - even though the end result was simply progressing from one place to another - either way. It was an extraordinarily frustrating experience.

But, ultimately, also very useful. I received a very good lesson on many things NOT to do as a DM!

 

[Scott Christian]

But is it enough?

No matter what "choice" the players make, the DM will react. So are players really fine with simply making one choice and then letting the DM do whatever they want? Does the DM get a free pass, just as the players made a choice?

I am confused. That is the definition of an RPG. Players make choices, and then the GM reacts to those choices. The DM's Guide and PHB literally state this.

I think the big problem here is so many players want Cinematic Style. They watch a great many action adventure type movies. And way, way, way too many of the movies are very poorly written. As such so many movies have main characters doing the dumbest things ever.....and they work every time. The character saves the world and all they did was put a bucket on their head and act like a blithering idiot. Players watch this and go "WOW! I wanna do that in my next RPG game!"

I am sorry, but I don't share the negative cinema viewpoint that many do. Yes, there are always plot holes, and yes, there are always crazy things that happen. I mean, why would Indiana Jones reach under a 100,000 pound closing stone door and risk getting his arm crushed just to grab his hat? Cinema is the answer. Why would Conan get drunk before going into the wizard's tower, only to have the wizard kidnap the person he is supposed to protect? Cinema is the answer. If it can flesh out a character or forward the story, and isn't too contrived, then it is probably ok to do.

Anyone can bash cinema and point out its ridiculous flaws, its hyperbolic storytelling, and its over-simplified character choices. But, I choose to look at the glitter on the poorly drawn crayon pictures.

 

[Scott Christian]

Well in a true Sandbox there is no "plot." Usually things progress based on a natural progression (usually based on what the DM thinks should happen, especially if the PCs aren't involved, but not always - methods differ). And of course, where ever the PCs are they usually wander into and disrupt and break stuff and cause waves from there.

This was always the thing for me - no plot. I always tried to tie some of the locales together, this way something would be over-arching. It's that, or you lean really heavily into the character's story arc. So, I agree, but kind of disagree. I really don't know to tell you the truth.

 

[Scott Christian]

It was a LONG time ago, but from what I remember no. If the book had a fight with the guards, then NOTHING we could do would prevent that fight - even though the end result was simply progressing from one place to another - either way. It was an extraordinarily frustrating experience.

But, ultimately, also very useful. I received a very good lesson on many things NOT to do as a DM!

Oh wow! That is rough and a bummer. Sorry to hear that. Hopefully, your gaming group now is more fun! And yes, it is interesting how powerful non-examples can be to our learning process - especially for GMing.

 

[Mort]

Oh wow! That is rough and a bummer. Sorry to hear that. Hopefully, your gaming group now is more fun! And yes, it is interesting how powerful non-examples can be to our learning process - especially for GMing.

He DMd for the group once. Strangely we never asked him to do so again.

 

[Maxperson]

I would join this thread ....

but I know where it is going.

I guess that it makes it the most aptly named thread ever!

Chattanooga?