The Shaman
First Post
This is why the 'new definition' cited above makes zero sense.
Linear adventure =/= railroad.
What's the problem with railroading?
- Thread starter Dodavehu
- Start date
Linear adventure =/= railroad.
I was picking up on your "players choose the scenario" - I read this as meaning "the players explore the world using their PCs as vehicles, based on the ingame information about the world collected by their PCs". That is, I read it as referring to the way in which, in a sandbox, the players choose the scenario.
If you take "players choose the scenario" to include "players feed the GM the cues whereby the GM sets up the next episode/scene/encounter" then I'll go along with you.
I guess where I'm going with this is that there is a tendency on this forum to equate metagamed scene framing by the GM with railroading. I saw a hint of this in your post - perhaps an error on my part.
ExploderWizard
Hero
The lens through which railroading is viewed depends heavily upon the personalities of the players involved. Some casual player types just want to put their brain on autopilot, follow the presented plot, roll dice and kill stuff. These players are a perfect match for a DM with a particular story to tell.
These players might be railroaded often, even blatantly so but if they are happy with the results and the game overall then nothing wrong is happening.
More engaged players who like to make plans of their own and have a greater interest in the meaningful impact of their characters actions would not be as happy with such a game. These types of players require a much more flexible DM. In a game run for them, the railroading method wouldn't last very long.
Railroading is thus a matter of interpretation.
On a related note I have often heard the claim that more open or sandbox style games require so much more work from the DM. Over the course of running games for 30 years I have found the opposite to be true.
In railroad game, the prep work is indeed more focused. The DM can plan out details of each scene with confidence knowing that events will transpire as planned. The thing is though, at the actual table running the game for a crowd of passive, casual players is exhausting. All the creativity, thought, and energy the game has must come from one person.
The players are happy to go with whatever floats the DMs boat because it frees them from having to put forth any effort. The players can just sit back and be entertained.
A sandbox game offers more choices for meaningful player activity as far as deciding the direction of the campaign. The DM needs to be prepared for a much larger range of PC action which might seem to involve a lot more prep work. At the actual game with a table full of engaged players with goals and plans of their own, the burden of entertainment and driving the game is more equally distributed. Everyone involved is thinking on their feet which takes the campaign to places that would be much harder to reach on just the creative force of a single individual.
Of course these two groups are polar oppsites and extreme examples of playstyles. I would guess the vast majority of gaming groups have players of both types, as well as many shades in between, playing in them. Thus the railroading problem.
These players might be railroaded often, even blatantly so but if they are happy with the results and the game overall then nothing wrong is happening.
More engaged players who like to make plans of their own and have a greater interest in the meaningful impact of their characters actions would not be as happy with such a game. These types of players require a much more flexible DM. In a game run for them, the railroading method wouldn't last very long.
Railroading is thus a matter of interpretation.
On a related note I have often heard the claim that more open or sandbox style games require so much more work from the DM. Over the course of running games for 30 years I have found the opposite to be true.
In railroad game, the prep work is indeed more focused. The DM can plan out details of each scene with confidence knowing that events will transpire as planned. The thing is though, at the actual table running the game for a crowd of passive, casual players is exhausting. All the creativity, thought, and energy the game has must come from one person.
The players are happy to go with whatever floats the DMs boat because it frees them from having to put forth any effort. The players can just sit back and be entertained.
A sandbox game offers more choices for meaningful player activity as far as deciding the direction of the campaign. The DM needs to be prepared for a much larger range of PC action which might seem to involve a lot more prep work. At the actual game with a table full of engaged players with goals and plans of their own, the burden of entertainment and driving the game is more equally distributed. Everyone involved is thinking on their feet which takes the campaign to places that would be much harder to reach on just the creative force of a single individual.
Of course these two groups are polar oppsites and extreme examples of playstyles. I would guess the vast majority of gaming groups have players of both types, as well as many shades in between, playing in them. Thus the railroading problem.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
I have a trilogy of adventures that form a short campaign. The authors admit that it's linear. Having said that, the players can "jump the tracks", which will eventually cause a nation to fall.
There's also a scene where either one of the PCs or an NPC will be executed, depending on what the PCs were able to find out earlier. If they were able to link the evidence to the NPC, he's the one who'll "get the rope". The script says that he escapes his execution to hassle the PCs later. And unless this NPC actually dies, he'll become a recurring villain.
Despite being a linear adventure, if the PC's asked for permission to say, guard his cell, or witness the execution, I'd allow it. By this point in said linear adventure, they've already proven themselves to the nation, despite probably being only around 2nd level at this point.
There's also a scene where either one of the PCs or an NPC will be executed, depending on what the PCs were able to find out earlier. If they were able to link the evidence to the NPC, he's the one who'll "get the rope". The script says that he escapes his execution to hassle the PCs later. And unless this NPC actually dies, he'll become a recurring villain.
Despite being a linear adventure, if the PC's asked for permission to say, guard his cell, or witness the execution, I'd allow it. By this point in said linear adventure, they've already proven themselves to the nation, despite probably being only around 2nd level at this point.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Remember that, as DM , you are the one running the campaign and what is linear or not is up to you. Published material only directs the campaign to the extent the DM allows it to.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
In all but a few cases.
The cliche "you are the last hope/all the previous groups are MIA or dead" trope is in effect. PCs either get the MacGuffin/SwordOfPlotAdvancement or they don't.
The title of the campaign is the reason the nation falls if the PCs fail.
Dungeons, naturally, only have so many ways you can go.
The cliche "you are the last hope/all the previous groups are MIA or dead" trope is in effect. PCs either get the MacGuffin/SwordOfPlotAdvancement or they don't.
The title of the campaign is the reason the nation falls if the PCs fail.
Dungeons, naturally, only have so many ways you can go.
Dungeons are actually a good symbol for this discussion as a whole (mostly because one can have an entire campaign in a dungeon).
A dungeon can easily be a railroad: singular paths, falling portcullises , slide traps and the like can force the PCs to follow the DM's prescribed rails through the dungeon, with no chance to change direction or even turn back.
A dungeon can be linear without being a railroad. There aren't any branches or alternate routes, but at least the PCs can always hole up to heal or even backtrack, possibly giving up entirely or heading out for a few nights on the town before delving deeper.
A dungeon can be a non-linear, yet prescribed "story". There might be different paths through different challenges, multiples way the PCs can get to and engage the Boss Fight at the Bottom Level, but there is still a Boss Fight and a Bottom Level.
Or a dungeon can be a sandbox, what is often called a "mega-dungeon". Numerous entrances and exists and accesses to different levels and sub-levels. The PCs are free to explore and engage the dungeon however they like, at whatever pace, in whatever order. The dungeon might not even have a pre-defined map; there are many a wonderful random dungeon generator, from the one in the AD&D DMG on up.
I have used every one of these at some point in the past. Each can serve its purpose for the right group at the right time. Sometimes, a con game or one off requires a railroad. Sometimes a long campaign with well known players can benefit from a random mega-dungeon the PCs can explore at their leisure. The same goes for any kind of adventure or campaign basis.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
The first dungeon doesn't even occur until near the end of the first part of the trilogy. And while the PCs can explore places they don't need to go, there is a sort of time limit. That the authors have suggested using "O Fortuna" as background music to highlight time drifting away.
And the boss fight isn't quite on the bottom floor of the complex, exactly.
And the boss fight isn't quite on the bottom floor of the complex, exactly.
Haltherrion
First Post
I think there are some players and refs who feel something more on the sandbox end of things is a purer, better form of gaming but that doesn't mean most gamers necessarily subscribe to that. I think the sandbox crowd tends to be more vocal but not very prevalent.
Published scenarios remain popular and they vary from somewhat railroady to very railroady. Someone must be buying and enjoying them.
In my own experience, on the railroad to sandbox spectrum I tend to between a little railroady to somewhat sandboxish (the median more on the sanbox side but not hard over). But I enjoy a wide range of games across the spectrum. The most common other ref in our group runs a very railroad-ish game and I've always enjoyed those as well. Honestly, I think he creates more memorable situations than I do but it is hard to evaluate as a player in one game and a ref in the other.
The trick is, as usual, to stay away from the extremes. A true, deep railroad isn't going to be much fun. Might as read a book or watch a movie but a game that provides a clear story and fairly clear direction while letting you solve it how you want? Can be loads of fun with the right setting and for the record, not so different from the better CRPGs that many paper and pencil gamers also enjoy.
Similarly, a sandbox game where the players set direction can be a lot of fun. And as you note, something too sandboxish might be actually quite dull. Ref: "What do you do next?" Players: "I don't know, what is there to do?" REf: "Hey, I just create the setting you need to find something to do." Players, not always verbalized: "Heck, the setting may be clear in your head but I don't really know where to start. And besides, the last five things I tried to do all ended up going no where. This is boring."
Published scenarios remain popular and they vary from somewhat railroady to very railroady. Someone must be buying and enjoying them.
In my own experience, on the railroad to sandbox spectrum I tend to between a little railroady to somewhat sandboxish (the median more on the sanbox side but not hard over). But I enjoy a wide range of games across the spectrum. The most common other ref in our group runs a very railroad-ish game and I've always enjoyed those as well. Honestly, I think he creates more memorable situations than I do but it is hard to evaluate as a player in one game and a ref in the other.
The trick is, as usual, to stay away from the extremes. A true, deep railroad isn't going to be much fun. Might as read a book or watch a movie but a game that provides a clear story and fairly clear direction while letting you solve it how you want? Can be loads of fun with the right setting and for the record, not so different from the better CRPGs that many paper and pencil gamers also enjoy.
Similarly, a sandbox game where the players set direction can be a lot of fun. And as you note, something too sandboxish might be actually quite dull. Ref: "What do you do next?" Players: "I don't know, what is there to do?" REf: "Hey, I just create the setting you need to find something to do." Players, not always verbalized: "Heck, the setting may be clear in your head but I don't really know where to start. And besides, the last five things I tried to do all ended up going no where. This is boring."
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I think it is far more difficult to convey a real sandbox in a published adventure, and this skews the way people think about it, until they have some varied experience under their belt.
Anyone that has ever run anything approaching a pure sandbox will likely tell you that their notes are not something that could be easily communicated in a published module. There is so much half done (or even not done) that was nevertheless hinted or noted in passing, and would have been available if needed.
Teaching sandbox is like teaching improvization jazz. It can be done, but the person learning must spend some time, well, failing at it, before they'll really get it. In contrast, linear adventures (like more circumscribed jazz) can be taught. Sure, without practice, it won't be very good, but it will be a poorer version of the actual thing attempted.
For another analogy, it is like swimming, versus doing a swan dive or a backflip off the board. People can swim poorly or they can swim really well, or somewhere in between. There isn't much room, however, between a good swan dive or back flip, versus total fail. Having done a full--face, belly, legs, and feet--"belly flop" off the high dive, trying a swan dive, I can understand why people are sometime relunctant to try sandbox.
It is not that sandbox is a purer form, or inherently better, than other options in gaming. (Though naturally it is a better choice for some people.) Rather, it is that sandbox has a steeper learning curve, and thus seems inaccessible to some people for whom it might be a better choice.
Anyone that has ever run anything approaching a pure sandbox will likely tell you that their notes are not something that could be easily communicated in a published module. There is so much half done (or even not done) that was nevertheless hinted or noted in passing, and would have been available if needed.
Teaching sandbox is like teaching improvization jazz. It can be done, but the person learning must spend some time, well, failing at it, before they'll really get it. In contrast, linear adventures (like more circumscribed jazz) can be taught. Sure, without practice, it won't be very good, but it will be a poorer version of the actual thing attempted.
For another analogy, it is like swimming, versus doing a swan dive or a backflip off the board. People can swim poorly or they can swim really well, or somewhere in between. There isn't much room, however, between a good swan dive or back flip, versus total fail. Having done a full--face, belly, legs, and feet--"belly flop" off the high dive, trying a swan dive, I can understand why people are sometime relunctant to try sandbox.
It is not that sandbox is a purer form, or inherently better, than other options in gaming. (Though naturally it is a better choice for some people.) Rather, it is that sandbox has a steeper learning curve, and thus seems inaccessible to some people for whom it might be a better choice.
