Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zarionofarabel" data-source="post: 9732812" data-attributes="member: 7026405">Well, my personal take is probably odd, but as far as I can tell by what is described as what actually happens at the table, is that a &quot;railroad&quot; game and a &quot;linear adventure&quot; play out the same. The GM creates a predetermined plotline filled with specific scenes and encounters and the players follow the GMs prompts from one to the next until they reach the concluding scene/encounter. The real difference is that in a &quot;linear adventure&quot; the players are happy to do that, whereas in a &quot;railroad&quot; game the players want to do other things but are somehow (straight up or by illusionism) forced to follow the predetermined sequence of events. I think it's the perceived negative light that the &quot;railroad&quot; classification has attached to it that birthed the much newer &quot;linear adventure&quot; classification. Either way, at the table, both playstyles play out exactly the same, the difference being player buy in. I'm not sure why people don't just champion being &quot;railroad&quot; players and shout from the rooftops about how having tracks and predetermined scenes/encounters makes for a better game, as the &quot;linear adventure&quot; crowd often does.Then again I watched a YT video recently where the creator proposed that no one actually plays a &quot;sandbox&quot; game because anytime the GM imputs anything in to the narrative they are denying players agency by determining details of the narrative without player consent. It was a strange take to say the least. Then again I also recently watched a video where the creator stated that a PC dying without express player permission was also denying player agency as the player wasn't given the choice as to whether or not they wanted the PC death to occur, even though the system and dice decided that outcome.I'm old so at this point the whole dichotomy of &quot;railroad&quot; vs &quot;sandbox&quot; seems a little silly as I believe most games are a combination of both. I claim to run a &quot;sandbox&quot; game because I want the players to be the primary drivers of the narrative and create a story that emerges through play. I'm also seriously bad at guessing what the players will do and instead rely on real time prompts during play to inform me on what elements I should be adding to the narrative. The again, as a player I will happily sit back and wait for the next quest marker to pop up so I can dutifully follow it as I am usually interested to see where the GM is going with the story.So yeah, does that mean I'm a &quot;sandbox&quot; GM but a &quot;railroad&quot; player? <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤣" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" title="Rolling on the floor laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :rofl:" data-shortname=":rofl:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="zarionofarabel, post: 9732812, member: 7026405"] Well, my personal take is probably odd, but as far as I can tell by what is described as what actually happens at the table, is that a "railroad" game and a "linear adventure" play out the same. The GM creates a predetermined plotline filled with specific scenes and encounters and the players follow the GMs prompts from one to the next until they reach the concluding scene/encounter. The real difference is that in a "linear adventure" the players are happy to do that, whereas in a "railroad" game the players want to do other things but are somehow (straight up or by illusionism) forced to follow the predetermined sequence of events. I think it's the perceived negative light that the "railroad" classification has attached to it that birthed the much newer "linear adventure" classification. Either way, at the table, both playstyles play out exactly the same, the difference being player buy in. I'm not sure why people don't just champion being "railroad" players and shout from the rooftops about how having tracks and predetermined scenes/encounters makes for a better game, as the "linear adventure" crowd often does. Then again I watched a YT video recently where the creator proposed that no one actually plays a "sandbox" game because anytime the GM imputs anything in to the narrative they are denying players agency by determining details of the narrative without player consent. It was a strange take to say the least. Then again I also recently watched a video where the creator stated that a PC dying without express player permission was also denying player agency as the player wasn't given the choice as to whether or not they wanted the PC death to occur, even though the system and dice decided that outcome. I'm old so at this point the whole dichotomy of "railroad" vs "sandbox" seems a little silly as I believe most games are a combination of both. I claim to run a "sandbox" game because I want the players to be the primary drivers of the narrative and create a story that emerges through play. I'm also seriously bad at guessing what the players will do and instead rely on real time prompts during play to inform me on what elements I should be adding to the narrative. The again, as a player I will happily sit back and wait for the next quest marker to pop up so I can dutifully follow it as I am usually interested to see where the GM is going with the story. So yeah, does that mean I'm a "sandbox" GM but a "railroad" player? 🤣 [/QUOTE]

Verification