Thought Experiment - "Is your game a railroad" test

[Stormonu]

With the recent threads on Sandboxing/Railroading, I was thinking about making up a "test" - like the ones "what kind of player are you", but instead designed to evaluate what "percentage" of a Sandboxer vs. Railroader you are.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm best qualified to come up with say, about 20-25 questions to get a mix, so I'm turning to the community here for some help with questions and answers. I'd prefer questions that have three main options. The question itself and answers should NOT be loaded towards making one "correct" - Instead, one answer strongly leans towards Sandbox style, one answer about 50%/50% and one answer that strongly leans towards a Railroad style. Like the question, the answers should not, of themselves, be derogatory of one style over the other, but simply present options that a DM (or Player) might actually take.

Example:

In the current game, the DM has placed hints with certain NPCs of a powerful evil in a nearby mountain dungeon that threatens the local populace. However, after discussion, the players decide to undertake a different mission in the local woods. As DM, your response would be:

A) Require the players to undertake the mountain dungeon mission by manipulating events until they concede to go to the mountain. (Railroad)

B) Switch the dungeon to exist in the forest and make it part of the forest mission or have the forest mission relate/lead to the planned dungeon (50%)

C) Make preparations for/wing the menace in the forest and leave the mountain dungeon for another time, if the players come back to it (Sandbox)

 

[steeldragons]

A chalice sits on an altar with a a series of 4 colored gems set before it. Behind the altar, a series of 4 sealed doorways. Clues have been placed hinting to a way to solve some problem/puzzle for what must be done to open doorways. As DM, do you:

a) Make sure all of the hints are clear/picked up by the party. Lay more hints as necessary. Make sure the party solves the puzzle the way you expect to continue to the next place you have prepared.

b) Leave the party to their own devices, whether they find the hints or not. If they complete some piece of the puzzle, you let them get through and just switch where your prepared encounter is.

c) Let the party ignore the puzzle. Leave the room. Solve the puzzle in a way you had not aniticipated to avoid any/all danger.

 

[nedjer]

imo the 'sandbox' v's 'railroad' is a false premise - as recent threads have suggested when demonstrating that a balance of the two is likely to offer a 'better fit'/ more 'optimal' gameplay, including plenty of opportunities for player choice.

In addition, it's very hard to break down these terms, e.g. PCs have visited all the other optional/ 'sandboxy' locations and are left with the last link in the underlying campaign. They can choose not go to the final location, but they''re basically on rails/ owned by then; unless presented with lots of choices within the location, allowing them to go off the rails while still on them.

Player choice within and across different gameplay elements seems easier to measure and might yield some meaningful results. E.g. ask about 'would you prompt in this situation?'/ will you allow PCs to go 'off the map?' - maybe challenge and location wise/ are players encouraged and supported to go freeform and what types of freeform and homebrew do you encourage, e.g. shaping rules or in-game event selection, building shared narratives, player-driven challenges, epic challenges, tactical 'expression'?

 

[kitsune9]

In addition, it's very hard to break down these terms, e.g. PCs have visited all the other optional/ 'sandboxy' locations and are left with the last link in the underlying campaign. They can choose not go to the final location, but they''re basically on rails/ owned by then; unless presented with lots of choices within the location, allowing them to go off the rails while still on them.

I would agree. It's hard for gamers to reach a consensus as to what truly defines a railroad or sandbox game unless we look at the extremes of the two, but once we start adding elements of one to the other, the waters do be muddied.

 

[Beginning of the End]

With the recent threads on Sandboxing/Railroading, I was thinking about making up a "test" - like the ones "what kind of player are you", but instead designed to evaluate what "percentage" of a Sandboxer vs. Railroader you are.

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating: "Sandbox" and "Railroading" are not antonyms. Treating them as such tends to severely distort the meaning/understanding of one or both terms.

"Railroading" is when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.

"Sandbox", in the most useful definition I've heard, is a campaign structure where the PCs choose the scenario.

The opposite of a "sandbox" is a campaign where the GM tells the players what they'll be playing tonight. While that's certainly railroading, it's pretty much universally acknowledged as the lightest form of railroading possible. And once you've said, "We'll be investigating the Green Hag murders tonight." Nothing stops you from designing that investigation in a completely non-linear fashion.

Similarly, the opposite of "railroading" is "non-linear design". And while sandboxing is inherently non-linear in its scenario design, it's quite possible for the individual scenarios to be heavily railroaded in their design. (This is probably less common, since people who prefer non-linear scenario selection will probably prefer non-linear scenario design for the same reasons. But it's certainly possible. Once you've chosen to investigate the Green Hag murders, there's only one way to solve 'em.)

So while the two terms are certainly related to each other, their relationship is tangential rather than antonymic.

 

[Stormonu]

Well, my intention still remains the same - a series of questions designed to help determine playstyle - whether its someone who prefers to be "in control" of a storyline or placing limits on player choice or someone who is more open to the idea of players who want to run off and go somewhere/do something unexpected.

I've seen, for example, the Robin Law player type test (X% storyteller, Y% method actor, Z% buttkicker, etc.) and would like to try and devise something similar for (lack of a better term) Railroad/Sandbox. Perhaps a better breakout might be looking at Mechanics Control, Story Control, Preparer, Imprompter. Something for people to consider for what their DMing style is or for Players to evalute what type of DM they'd be comfortable with.

 

[nedjer]

That'd be a laugh as a magazine quiz:

Your players clear out a smugglers' den and decide to set up in the smuggling business for themselves. Do you:

a) tell them that's not in your plot and the den is infested with lethal beetles that come out of the rock at night and eat PCs' brains.

b) caution them that time's running out on the big quest, but let them spend a couple of days smuggling before cautioning them again.

c) explain that there are likely to be consequences if they don't run a smarter operation than the previous lot and what are they going to do with them anyway?

d) ask how they plan to get started.



Mainly As:

Train Conductor GM

Bs:

Sheepworrier GM

Cs:

Freeform GM

Ds:

Invisible GM

 

[nedjer]

Players want to make a legendary magic item. Do you:

a) tell them it's a phenomenally expensive process that requires 144 spell components collected on a full moon across 7 continents.

b) caution them that neglecting their duties will probably mean that they won't get home in time to stop their womenfolk being burnt at the stake by a passing Witchfinder.

c) explain the first of the demanding but necessary steps required to research and prepare the item over weeks or months.

d) ask how they're going to set about making the item.

more propaganda than survey or humour The Conductor and Sheepworrier get ridiculed in contrast to the Freeform 'mentor' and the 'zen' Invisible GM. Polished versions as used in concept marketing go for the contrast, but insinuate rather than ridicule.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I would agree. It's hard for gamers to reach a consensus

You could have stopped right there...

 

[Ycore Rixle]

You're playing old school and a PC casts Freedom (reverse Imprisonment), and, wouldn't you know it, he doesn't intone the name and background of the creature to be freed perfectly right. You roll the 10% chance to see if other creatures are freed as a result of the mispronunciation, and you roll an 09. You:

a) Do it up by the book. 1-100 creatures of random power levels appear right next to the caster. Arguably, many of them should be very high level, because who casts Imprisonment on an orc? So you roll it up, percentile dice, and then a straight d20 for hit dice, and then a DMG appendix to determine NPC or creature type. If five solars and two liches and a yagnodaemon and three of every color dragon pop up, so be it, the campaign's sure going to be interesting now.

b) Use the opportunity to bring back a couple of NPCs that the PCs believed dead, but were really just imprisoned, plus maybe a purple worm for a fun combat, and maybe a new NPC with a plot hook you've been trying to work in. Ah ha! You grin evilly at all the rat bastard plot vistas now opening up before you.

c) No way you're wrecking your campaign over an 09! That die read 11, and no one on the other side of the screen can ever say anything different. Nothing happens, other than the intended Freedom spell.

FYI this actually happened in my 1980s 1e campaign.