D&D 5E The Illusion of Experience Points that Everyone Disbelieves

[Ahnehnois]

Just to be persnickety, I'd probably say "Sandbox-to-adventure path". When you label a continuum with only one end being a pejorative, someone is going to to look at that spectrum and see a ranking, not a description.

To me, your way of putting it is more pejorative. "Adventure path" suggests something published, or at least pre-written, which isn't really what I'm getting at.

To me, the term sandbox indicates that the world is open and the players can go where they like and do what they want, at least, inasmuch as the world naturally allows. The converse is a restriction of choice, a metagame imposition by the DM that requires the players to be in particular places or do particular things. To the point, both of those involve telling a story, it simply varies as to who is driving the narrative.

While I can see that the term railroading does carry a negative connotation and I myself am not fond of it, I find it something that many players actively prefer, so I don't think it actually is a negative.

 

[TwoSix]

To me, your way of putting it is more pejorative. "Adventure path" suggests something published, or at least pre-written, which isn't really what I'm getting at.

Are there a lot of people who view using pre-written/published material as pejorative? Considering how many people love Paizo precisely because of their Adventure Path model, I don't think that people who play in that style seem to find the term pejorative.

I mean, I know plenty of posters who are firmly "I only run homebrew," but even then I've haven't observed too many judgments against modules as a playstyle. Railroading, OTOH, is constantly used an attack.

To me, the term sandbox indicates that the world is open and the players can go where they like and do what they want, at least, inasmuch as the world naturally allows. The converse is a restriction of choice, a metagame imposition by the DM that requires the players to be in particular places or do particular things. To the point, both of those involve telling a story, it simply varies as to who is driving the narrative.

To me, a sandbox is pretty much what you said. Obviously, the negative to a sandbox is that a game can easily founder without strong player impetus to drive the action and a DM who can either improvise quickly OR has done a lot of prepwork to support multiple player choices. To grossly generalize, I've found adventure path modules more suited to players who are on average more casual and to DMs for whom improvisation is not their preferred or strongest suit.

While I can see that the term railroading does carry a negative connotation and I myself am not fond of it, I find it something that many players actively prefer, so I don't think it actually is a negative.

My difference of opinion with you here is that almost every time I've seen the term railroading, it's used as a negative, even by players and DMs who prefer campaigns with enough encounter and plot pre-scripting that I might consider them railroads. I don't know anybody who thinks "I'm a railroading DM, and that's great!"

 

[Ahnehnois]

I mean, I know plenty of posters who are firmly "I only run homebrew," but even then I've haven't observed too many judgments against modules as a playstyle. Railroading, OTOH, is constantly used an attack.

There are certainly been threads on this issue.

My difference of opinion with you here is that almost every time I've seen the term railroading, it's used as a negative, even by players and DMs who prefer campaigns with enough encounter and plot pre-scripting that I might consider them railroads. I don't know anybody who thinks "I'm a railroading DM, and that's great!"

If there's a better word than railroading (deus ex machina? that carries a negative connotation too), I don't know it. You're right that most DM's won't use that term to brag, but players (especially newer ones) will often ask questions like "what are we supposed to be doing?" or "what is this campaign about?", which to me pretty much translates to "please railroad me a little more". If there isn't a better term for a metagamge restriction of player choice by the DM (which is a legitimate thing), feel free to coin one.

 

[TwoSix]

If there isn't a better term for a metagamge restriction of player choice by the DM (which is a legitimate thing), feel free to coin one.

Yea, it's tough. (If it was easy, there'd be a term for it already, right?) "Adventure play" is too generic. "Module play" ignores that plenty of DMs make up their own adventures to play in this style. "Scripted play" is closer, but still feels a little too judgmental, as the overall play isn't scripted, there's just a strong pre-rendered idea of what will come next. Maybe "plot-driven play", as opposed to "character-driven play" in a sandbox?

 

[Uller]

There are certainly been threads on this issue.

If there's a better word than railroading (deus ex machina? that carries a negative connotation too), I don't know it.

Adventure path. He already used it. True railroading is negative because it leads the party from one scene to another with predetermined outcomes and little or no choices. The players are left feeling like they are nothing more than observers in the story the DM is telling.

I prefer sandbox style games but as a dm I often don't have time and sometimes my players and I just agree on an adventure path style game. Its a pregame agreed upon set of parameters to keep the game constrained to a manageable set of possibilities. Like playing Axis and Allies instead of Risk. Both are strategic wargames and I'm sure folks have dome the work to make A&A playble without the constraints of predetermined sides...


When I play or DM an RPG I am not setting out to tell a story. A story is often the result.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Maybe "plot-driven play", as opposed to "character-driven play" in a sandbox?

That gets back to the reason that I started this though. Even if you're playing something very sandbox-y, there's still a plot. The plot is simply the stuff that happens as a consequence of the players going to different parts of the setting and messing around, as opposed to stuff that happens to the players. It's simply emergent from the interactions at the table, as opposed to being decided by the DM.

I don't have a better term for what I'm getting at, or I'd have used it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When I play or DM an RPG I am not setting out to tell a story. A story is often the result.

Often? Is there an example case where you've played a session of D&D and nothing that could constitute a story happened?

Adventure path. He already used it.

But, as I explained, it misses the point. A DM could railroad his players improvisationally, having no prepared materials whatsoever.

True railroading is negative because it leads the party from one scene to another with predetermined outcomes and little or no choices. The players are left feeling like they are nothing more than observers in the story the DM is telling.

That isn't necessarily a negative though. I'd argue that the pejorative element of the term comes when the players think they should be able to make a choice, but they aren't allowed to make it. In pretty much any D&D game, most of what happens is determined by the DM. The question is do the players have the level of agency they expect.

And even then, when choices are taken from them it can definitely be a good thing. After all, we don't always have choices in life.

 

[TwoSix]

That gets back to the reason that I started this though. Even if you're playing something very sandbox-y, there's still a plot. The plot is simply the stuff that happens as a consequence of the players going to different parts of the setting and messing around, as opposed to stuff that happens to the players. It's simply emergent from the interactions at the table, as opposed to being decided by the DM.

I don't have a better term for what I'm getting at, or I'd have used it.

Yes, but in the sandbox, the plot is emergent from the gameplay. In an adventure path type game, the plot exists before the game even starts, and the characters play along to exist within the plot. (And in most cases, shape it as well. If they truly have no impact, then it's a railroad.)

 

[TwoSix]

That isn't necessarily a negative though. I'd argue that the pejorative element of the term comes when the players think they should be able to make a choice, but they aren't allowed to make it. In pretty much any D&D game, most of what happens is determined by the DM. The question is do the players have the level of agency they expect.

And even then, when choices are taken from them it can definitely be a good thing. After all, we don't always have choices in life.

I have no interest in trying to decide whether the choices are good or bad. I'm merely interested in identifying the various styles of play and identifying terms that are as close to neutral as possible for the broader community. I have a taxonomic interest, not a philosophical one.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have no interest in trying to decide whether the choices are good or bad. I'm merely interested in identifying the various styles of play and identifying terms that are as close to neutral as possible for the broader community. I have a taxonomic interest, not a philosophical one.

It is a challenge.

I'm merely interested in showing that no matter what the process you go through, some kind of nominal story is always the result.