Why All the Linear Game Hate?

[lisakheav]

Recently, I have noticed an anti-linear gameplay movement.

The view: If the core of the game is not an open world or a sandbox, then it must be lazy, second rate or designed for twelve year old kids.

I disagree with this idea. Linear games have the most polished gameplay and memorable experiences. Linear games can actually tell a cohesive story where you can become vested in the character(s). Sandbox games are limited to a "main quest" or a loose framework that does not amount to much.

Sure, sandbox games offer the opportunity for more "innovative" gameplay moments, but are they really better?

{Scrubbed}

[Kaervaslol]

The main problem with linear games is that they want to tell a story.

The craft of telling stories is not for everyone, and one can get spoiled after reading really good storytellers (Twain, Bioy Casares, Borges, Poe, etc).

So here I am, interacting with a world I can only modify tangentially, listening to exposition, on a set of rails, all coming from a guy that quite frankly doesn't have what it takes to make a good story.

So the thing boils down to: reading from the masters or listen to a crappy story in which I get to roll dice once in a while.

EDIT: Sandbox games are limited only by the drive of the players.

[Andreaz]

"hate" is such a strong word.
I don't mind mostly linear games. The ones I'm in right now have a couple big plots that won't change, just adapt to our circumstances and actions. But we're not stuck to it. It's inexorable and we're doing our thing as we go.

[Sidmen]

I'm fairly sure you're talking about Video Games instead of Pen-N-Paper games.

That said, I enjoy both linear and sandbox games. The reason I tend to favor Sandboxes is because they give me significantly more play time than a linear game. I've spent hundreds of hours in Elder Scrolls, GTA, and other sandboxes because I can do literally anything I want any time I want - starting over many times to try out different things. By contrast, once I finished KoTOR or Mass Effect I was done - only vaguely interested in starting them again after YEARS, since I have a very good memory and already know what's going to happen.

Back in pnp town, I've never been in a "linear" game while playing a PNP RPG. Even with Adventure Paths, I've never felt constrained by where the game is going, because I'm rather poor at making my own story and need to riff off what other people are doing.

[MickJay]

From personal experience and discussions with friends - players don't like it when their initiatives and ideas are dismissed or ignored. Cue a memorable session when players spent over half an hour coming up with ideas and contingencies for a situation we were told will occur, but that the GM never intended to happen. He simply allowed everyone to spend time and effort, and then resumed telling the story, except that the circumstances suddenly changed and whatever the players just did was meaningless.

I remember numerous other situations where player choices and input were simply ignored for the sake of the story (which, even if the story is interesting, isn't great). Few people enjoy being taken for a ride on which they can just look out the window and be part of the scenery, when they could just read the script in tenth of the time and with no frustration about being ignored.

[Raum]

Linear games have the most polished gameplay and memorable experiences. Linear games can actually tell a cohesive story where you can become vested in the character(s). Sandbox games are limited to a "main quest" or a loose framework that does not amount to much.
Heh, this is just as one sided as the opinions you're railing against.

Games run the gamut between scripted and unscripted. Ideally groups find the point(s) on the spectrum which suit their preferences. That's what makes for good gaming - finding the style which the whole group enjoys.

As for stories, both scripted and unscripted games may (or may not) tell a story. The difference is in whether or not the story is predetermined (scripted) or emergent (unscripted). Or something in between.

[valadil]

Pen and paper RPGs can be played in a linear or open fashion. Or somewhere in between. Video game RPGs can only be played in a linear or a branching linear fashion. If I'm going to play a game on the table instead of on my PC, I'd like to celebrate the game's strengths and do something that the video game can't compete with.


Linear games can actually tell a cohesive story where you can become vested in the character(s).

I strongly disagree with this part. If the story is linear, it's going to progress the same way regardless of the character I play. What I get out of playing a character is expressing that character and seeing the changes he makes on the world as he leaves his own personal mark. A whole party of unique characters will leave a distinct fingerprint on the world that no other party could have left. But when the story is linear and you can't affect the world, I can't express my character like this anymore. That completely disincentives me from being a character and I just go through the motions as I jump through the hoops the GM set before me.

Sidenote. What's with the wholesale scarves link in your sig? Not sure if that's kosher on these boards. Might want to check the rules.

[Xelbiuj]

I honestly don't see why you can't mix/match.

I like a good main plot with "monster/dungeon of the week" thrown in every once in a while.
It worked for X-Files, no reason it it can't work for me.
Your games don't need* a 100% consistent and back traceable level progression.

I love having holiday themes side quests throw in.
You were in the middle of a dungeon? Well today is March 17th so now your group happens to be walking threw the forest and you spot a rainbow and legend has it, at the end of rainbows . . .

Next session, back in the dungeon with any extra items/levels.

[GungHo]

Linear works if the presentation is linear. However, the second you sell "freedom" to someone and then throw up invisible walls or impassable rivers that are one foot deep, then people think they were sold a false bill of goods. That goes for pen & paper RPGs, computer games, and real life.

[mjlush]

Recently, I have noticed an anti-linear gameplay movement.

The view: If the core of the game is not an open world or a sandbox, then it must be lazy, second rate or designed for twelve year old kids.

I disagree with this idea. Linear games have the most polished gameplay and memorable experiences. Linear games can actually tell a cohesive story where you can become vested in the character(s). Sandbox games are limited to a "main quest" or a loose framework that does not amount to much.

Sure, sandbox games offer the opportunity for more "innovative" gameplay moments, but are they really better?


Extreme and Rude Answer

If you like Linear games so much you will probably get the best experience from reading a book, watching a movie or perhaps performing in a play.

More Balanced Answer

If the actions of the characters do not have any significant effect on the game. The only reason to turn up is to listen to the cool story. The only way your going to get a cool story is by having a good GM. Any game will work if you have a good GM.

If the actions of the characters can and do have a significant effect on the game the game is not linear.

It it possible to get close to a linear plotline and have player choice by creating a Mesh plot. ie all the outcomes from scenario A plug into different parts of scenario B (ie if the party are captured there taken to the Pits of Broon, if they escape they get plot breadcrumbs that lead to the Pits of Broon, if they miss the bread crumbs there sent on a mission to the Pits of Broon).

[Need_A_Life]

I go by something I think was called "Bubble"-design by the person who explained it to me.

I create "bubbles," aka. scenes, events and I draw some possible lines between the different other bubbles. Now, how they deal with the event and how they get from one bubble to another is all them; even handing them all my notes before session would not help them make those choices.

For example, from a recent Hunter scenario. The vampire they were asked to bring to safety (so that he could be pumped for information)? They could have put a bullet through his skull when they first met him. Or handed him over to another hunter, when he asked them to. They could have put a stake through his heart, dumped him in the trunk and driven non-stop.

Each of those choices would simply alter which bubbles they ran into, how many and when.
It allows me to have enough of a framework for a somewhat linear game to give the illusion of choice within a session and - since I gladly rework future plots between sessions - actual consequences (good AND bad) for future sessions.

[Lord Torath]

I think it all comes down to the feeling of cause and effect. Players like that a lot. A strictly linear game can give your players the feeling that they're influencing the game world just like a sandbox game can, but it can also make the players feel trapped in a particular plot if they want to go in a direction not allowed by the 'plot'. A lot of it depends on how skilled the DM is at making All Roads Lead to Rome, and at dangling the right hooks to interest the players. If the DM is subtle enough, players may never know they're not in a sandbox game. I'm not explaining this well, but you get the idea. (hopefully :smalleek:)

[Raum]

Sidenote. What's with the wholesale scarves link in your sig? Not sure if that's kosher on these boards. Might want to check the rules.Made me wonder if the whole thread was simply creative spam. Decided to give them the benefit of the doubt for now...though the longer they go without continuing the conversation, the more I lean towards "it's spam".

[Grinner]

Made me wonder if the whole thread was simply creative spam. Decided to give them the benefit of the doubt for now...though the longer they go without continuing the conversation, the more I lean towards "it's spam".

I keep telling you people that they're becoming intelligent. The more you talk to them, the more they learn. :smallamused:

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Spambot indeed.

I'm going to, in this case, leave the thread open for a bit, since it does (unintentionally) appear to be sparking a genuine discussion.

[mjlush]

Great Modthulhu: Spambot indeed.

I'm going to, in this case, leave the thread open for a bit, since it does (unintentionally) appear to be sparking a genuine discussion.

Could you delete the offending link from the parent?

[valadil]

Made me wonder if the whole thread was simply creative spam. Decided to give them the benefit of the doubt for now...though the longer they go without continuing the conversation, the more I lean towards "it's spam".

I had that suspicion too buy I really liked the topic. I was compulsed to reply to it, but not so incensed that I assumed the work if trolls. Well played, spambot!

[GoatToucher]

I think equating linear GMing with reading a book is an oversimplification that speaks of a bias much like the OP's.

Players get caught up in events. I don't know about you guys, but personally perceive time in sequence, and effects follow causes. While one event may lead to another, this does not negate PC autonomy. Optimally, PCs should be able to affect -how- events play out, hopefully to their advantage, certainly in a manner that suits the specifics of the characters.

Is this an argument for balanced GMing? Yes, but leaning towards linear, because it's a lot easier to create an interesting story with planning ahead of time rather than flying by the seat at your pants completely at the whims of the players (and player whimsy is just as much of a problem as GM tyranny).

As for the whole "No GM can match a book" argument, that is flatly farcical, as a GM can do a far better job of creating a story with planning and forethougt than players can off the cuff.

[geeky_monkey]

I don’t really mind linear games as long as the adventure is exciting and well-plotted. Most games I play generally last 4-6 sessions before we cycle GM and start a new campaign (often the same setting/characters get used again when it cycles round to the original GM again and we continue their tale), and as a result it is nice to have a story-arc.

With sufficient planning time it allows whichever GM is in charge to come up with a more cohesive world and fully fleshed out NPC than if they had to make it up off the cuff. If the players decide that something that was supposed to be a minor remark sounds like a more interesting hook than the plot the GM had in mind we usually swap to the next person’s turn to GM while they write something along those lines.

It may not be to everyone’s taste, but we’ve found it works better than our attempts to run sandboxes as they generally end up with less memorable villains and a lot more random encounters with mooks as the GM tried to stall the PC while working out what the heck the temple the party decided to head to should look like.

[CalamaroJoe]

Well played, spambot!

Be careful glorifying a banned poster! :smallbiggrin:


With sufficient planning time it allows whichever GM is in charge to come up with a more cohesive world and fully fleshed out NPC than if they had to make it up off the cuff. If the players decide that something that was supposed to be a minor remark sounds like a more interesting hook than the plot the GM had in mind we usually swap to the next person’s turn to GM while they write something along those lines.

It may not be to everyone’s taste, but we’ve found it works better than our attempts to run sandboxes as they generally end up with less memorable villains and a lot more random encounters with mooks as the GM tried to stall the PC while working out what the heck the temple the party decided to head to should look like.

You are right. I really feel the time constraints.
I often see comments implying that he DM that doesn't provide a sandbox world to his/her players is a lazy one. Me and my players manage to play once every two to four weeks, on the evening of one day chosen between a bunch of busy days. My players are kind enough to follow every bit of plot hooks that I throw at them, because they know that I likely had time to prepare that part of the plot only. :smallredface:

Alas! at times I would like they were less eager to bite to hooks, as they sometimes follow mindlessly the simplest decoy the evil guys lay to them...

[elliott20]

my belief is that we are really looking at a spectrum here, and less of a category. It depends greatly upon where the linearity lies. Lord Torath is correct, I think.

It's about cause and effect. Any game world that wants to have good verisimilitude will have this in spades. It will have cause and effect that is meaningful. This is one of the important keys to good writing, in that you need to be able to follow through on consequences in your narrative or else you will feel that the ending is a cop-out.

In a PnP game, the illusion is in the fact that the players are put in the driver seat. They never are fully, even in the most open of games. (otherwise, they would be playing a GM-less game) When you start adding more and more restrictions to what the players can and cannot do, you start peeling away at that illusion, at which point it can cause disillusionment and helplessness in the players.

Now, if your players are okay with this, then, well, great. But then at a certain point, you have to be asking yourself if it's better to be playing a different game instead. (i.e. instead of playing D&D, play Hero's Quest instead and just go straight to the dungeon crawl)

But that insight is not new. I think we all know this instinctively. What is more interesting is, what level of linearity vs. openness is optimal? Of course, we can simply say it depends on the players, but I don't think that's a very useful answer. "it depends" is just about the worst answer you can give to any question, actually. So let's try to break it all down.

Let's think about a game as several layers of interaction. For a crude starting model, let's we have task, scenario, arc, plot, setting, theme.

Task: The specific task that you need to do, i.e. rolling a knowledge check
Scenario: The specific incident such as an encounter, a trap, or a dungeon
Arc: The trajectory that the plot is evolving. i.e. the solution to a particular mystery, the way that a particular conflict between parties will be resolved.
Plot: The very story line that is being told, that is, the plot points that the players are pursuing
Setting: The very world they live in, and the overall set pieces
Theme: The heart and soul of what this whole game is about

When you look at it in this way, you can immediately see where linearity is often enforced.

I think 99% of us will leave task resolution to players. It is a test, and it's often dictated by the dice more so than anything else, so there is really not that much player input anyway.

Scenario, in my experience, is where the most stringent and linear games will impose their limits upon. In this case, the very solution to an obstacle is pre-defined and solving it is often resting on the player's ability to figure out how the GM thinks. This is generally a lot more rare in my experience

Arc: I believe this is generally where a lot of us will start when it comes to linearity. Think of it as saying, "here's a dungeon, you solve it in any order you want, but you HAVE to go through this dungeon". Here is where we talk about HOW plot points are resolved. If the king's daughter was kidnapped, what do you do? How do you go about resolving this problem? The over all arc of the solution, if already defined, is considered to be arc-linear

Plot: At this level, we start seeing a lot of the designs behind indie games. Here, the very plot that you pursue is not determined by the GM, but by the players themselves. I think it is usually at this point we can officially call the game a sandbox. Because at this point the plot points are player driven, it is HIGHLY dependent upon the players being proactive people. If the players have a hard time setting agendas for themselves, this is where it all falls apart.

Setting: Who are the factions that live in this world? What are the ways technology impacts the world? etc, etc. these are information that defines the world and the contours of what kind of stories can be told. A lot of systems actually do have mechanics that let players have an active hand in world creations. Diaspora (a fate 2.0 based game) is filled with this. The players can actually define world setting info on the fly, based on their role.

Theme: This often starts getting into system level hacking, and starts to fall into very abstract territories. Prime Times Adventure is the primary mechanical example of how players can effect the theme of the story.

you will see immediately the different types of players will fall on different comfort levels on the spectrum and will be comfortable with one aspect being linear vs. the other.

For simplicity sake, let's assume we can pull out our good friend the GNS theory. Narrativist players will generally want to have some freedom with plot and arc. Gamists will probably not be bothered too much if plot and arc are more tightly defined, as long as scenario is left open. Simulationists will probably not be comfortable with the notion that setting info is up for grabs.

[Radar]

I keep telling you people that they're becoming intelligent. The more you talk to them, the more they learn. :smallamused:
Mr Munroe (http://xkcd.com/810/) had a similar idea (warning: single bad word inside), but I don't think we will hit information singularity on silicon hardware.

Anyway, this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615) is a prime example of a really bad case of railroading (for those, who still didn't stumble upon DM of The Rings).

As it is, I think it's immensly difficult to keep the rails invisible, so most of the time it's better to write up a bunch of NPCs, their goals, methods and resources. With those information one should be able to adjust the plot on the fly. It is also good to have some surplus NPCs ready in case the players for some reason took an interest in some guy you described passing down the street or for those times, they menage to kill off the main villian before he even revealed himself.

[elliott20]

As it is, I think it's immensly difficult to keep the rails invisible, so most of the time it's better to write up a bunch of NPCs, their goals, methods and resources. With those information one should be able to adjust the plot on the fly. It is also good to have some surplus NPCs ready in case the players for some reason took an interest in some guy you described passing down the street or for those times, they menage to kill off the main villian before he even revealed himself.

DM of the Rings is seriously the most brilliant satire ever.

Anyway, I'm running my current campaign in this exact fashion that you've said here. It's working alright so far. The best thing about this approach is that in doing so, you can still be surprised without losing your ability to respond. This actually JUST happened last night.

one of my players is playing the heir to the throne of a kingdom but like all succession stories, has challengers to the throne. Instead of pitching the kingdom into civil war, he decided that he would challenge the other would be successor to a duel. (something that the challenger was quite confident of) I kept on warning him that this guy is REALLY good at what he does, and it might not be a good idea right now.

But he insisted upon it, stating that his character would not have it any other way, that his character would rather meet certain doom than cause strife to the rest of the world just to preserve his throne. He even refused aid from his party members when it became apparent that he was completely outclassed by challenger. (it was a matter of honor)

And of course, he got himself killed. (But not before putting up what I thought was a damn good fight) Now, while I didn't commit anything to paper yet, I actually had brainstormed several scenarios for his character to take down the road... dying within the first two weeks of his reign was not one of them.

[The Glyphstone]

Could you delete the offending link from the parent?

What link?:smallsmile:

[Rhynn]

Well, it's certainly ironic that a spambot would open such an interesting conversation. Where ever the original text came from, here goes some replies...


I disagree with this idea. Linear games have the most polished gameplay and memorable experiences.

Absolutely not my experience. I don't care for "polished gameplay", and I think the most memorable experiences are the ones that surprised everyone at the table and that a person had a hand in bringing to pass. The less pre-plotted/scripted the game is, the more of these there are.


Linear games can actually tell a cohesive story where you can become vested in the character(s).

Who wants to tell a cohesive story? And why wouldn't you be invested in a character in an open campaign? The longer they survive, the more invested you get. (And the longer they survive, the less likely they are to die, handily enough.)

I think campaigns where there's no plot or pre-written story (even an outline) are much more involving, because the story is created entirely by the players' actions!


Sandbox games are limited to a "main quest" or a loose framework that does not amount to much.

They're not. My Artesia sandbox campaign is about civil war and struggles for the throne in a small kingdom. That amounts to a lot.


Sure, sandbox games offer the opportunity for more "innovative" gameplay moments, but are they really better?

For me, yes, obviously. Miles better any day.

This presents a pretty weird idea of what a sandbox campaign is. It's not "you can go anywhere and do anything." Many (especially the old-school ones) focus very narrowly on, say, a great bid dungeon and a city nearby. That may sound like a limited set-up, or even like it's not a "sandbox" (if you don't know what that really means), but it's not. That is a recipe for all sorts of adventures, from small and personal to great and epic, for politics and warfare as well as dungeon-crawling, for intrigue, trade, piracy, wilderness exploration...

My big-campaign-in-the-works is an Undermountain-Waterdeep-Savage Frontier campaign (AD&D 2E with a lot of houserules to encourage a certain kind of old-school play). It's going to be very classic: I create tables, rules, and lists that lead to adventures and plots and stories, rather than writing out plots or encounters. That provides the best gaming:prep ratio - with very little work, I have the tools to create fun and memorable sessions from nothing. I keep everything broad, fuzzy, and vague until it needs to be in play, when I detail it out (preferrably before the session where I know it'll be needed). I ask the players their plans for next session, and prepare accordingly. If, for some reason, they have no idea what to do with the many storylines up in the air at any point in time (various mysteries of the Undermountain, intrigues of the city, and events in the North), they always have an easy answer: go into the dungeon! Any time they go there, they have a good chance of finding something that leads to more things to do outside of the dungeon.


For anyone who wishes to understand old-school sandbox campaigns, I recommend reading about Dwimmermount at Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.fi/). A megadungeon-centered sandbox campaign that organically creates things to do outside the dungeon and even creates epic storylines. (Spoilers: The book's never going to be published. Just take the play reports for what they are.)

[Radar]

(...)
And of course, he got himself killed. (But not before putting up what I thought was a damn good fight) Now, while I didn't commit anything to paper yet, I actually had brainstormed several scenarios for his character to take down the road... dying within the first two weeks of his reign was not one of them.
Heh, reminds me of one of my very first games. It was a one shot adventure and I rolled up a thief of sorts, because the DM said, we'll really need someone with those skills later on. We meet some rich guy in a tavern, who wants to hire us (how unexpected!) and after agreeing to do his bidding we are left with a few hours to kill before the work starts (some hostage rescue plan).
I thought to myslelf: "It's a big city with a busy market, I'm short on cash and it would be a shame to let all those nifty thieving skills go to waste."
To make things quick, the DM described some rnadom richman and told me to roll the dice.
*rolls* Fumble!
I'm noticed before I cut the purse, so I try to at least run away.
*rolls* Fumble!
I got smacked in the face and lights went out. The DM gave me another chance, since I woke up before they draged me to jail.
*rolls* Fumble!
Needles to say, I spent the whole adventure in chains and the party had to do without the thief they did need. Somehow they did the job anyway.

[elliott20]

well, at least the other players were willing to play up his selfless actions in trying to keep the kingdom together. And since he died pretty much playing his character to the bitter end (I think he was channeling judge dredd, but I'm not sure), I decided that his new character will start with additional action points. (I use a variant system where you have points for just bonuses or doing random little cool things, and points for doing stuff like auto-20 rolls and what not)

[Acanous]

There's two big reasons I know of for why people go off against linear games.
1: A linear game is the hallmark of either a new DM, or an experienced DM who is/thinks they are dealing with inexperienced player(s). Linear adventures require about the same ammount of prep-work as sandboxes, but less at-the-table creativity.
If your players want to join the orcs and raid he elven village instead of what you had planned, an experienced DM dealing with experienced players could pull this off without breaking immersion or having the table devolve into a game of Murderhobo: The Derailing. It's easier for a new DM or an experienced DM dealing with new players to say "Look, that's not happening." and roll with the established adventure. Because of this, Railroading DMs get a reputation as inexperienced DMs.

2: Player agency is rare. Getting the ability to go off and affect the game-world is hard to pull off. If you're doing things in the World of Darkness or in Faerun, there's established niches for player parties, but the seats at the big-people table are taken. Different games and settings have this to different degrees, but it's fairly common for the design of the game to assume the players will go on their adventure, do their thing, and not be interested in becomming a trade mogul of the Western Continent.
So most DMs are blindsided when the players DO. Poor or inexperienced DMs react poorly to this, blaming the player for things like "Wrecking the game" or "Hogging the spotlight".
The thing is, player agency requires three things to pull off at a table: Inspiration, Research, and a game element the player feels they can or should be able to influence.

You don't get a player going off the rails if they feel satisfied with their character and the world around them.
Some players, it is true, get frustrated and shout things like "I attack the king!" while getting the reward, but other, more amture players will feel something is lacking, look into what the game system can offer them, and then roleplay out the plan for changing the world just a little bit. It makes the player feel like they have freedom, and increases the immersion factor of the game.

Here on the giant boards, most players don't get a lot of opportunity to play out that freedom, despite being well-versed in the rules and generally mature individuals. So the restrictions of yet aother railroad campaign chafe.

So that's why railroading gets flack.

[oxybe]

it's all about expectations.

if i'm told i'm given a fleshed out world to explore and then stuck in a box with no way out, i'll be angry that the experience given is not the one i paid for.

if i'm told we're playing a module about going to some fort in the middle of nowhere and gonna kill an ecclectic collection of goblins, kobolds, orcs and hobgoblins, i'm not gonna go about and complain that the GM isn't letting my character be a stay-at-home dad.

when a GM pitches a campaign, be it sandbox or linear, as a player i make characters that are going to want to interact with the elements given.

in a sandbox game, the freedom is great though at time daunting, and being able to have a much more meaningful impact on the campaign is the main draw. to know that my character's actions won't "derail" but rather push the campaign in a new direction if i do something unthought of.

i do find the linear campaigns tend to have more overall and overarching focus then the sandbox ones, but that's probably by default. each character will have his or her own motivation for going to the Fort in the Middle of Nowhere and clearing it of boggarts.

it can be a bore if you're not interested in the linear plot however, but you chose to play in the module/adventure path. if it's not your cup of tea, thanks to rather linear nature of the campaign it hits the game far less hard if any given character drops out or gets replaced as the plot doesn't require any given character, just the existence of the party.

in a more sandbox/character driven campaign, suddenly losing one character due to player disinterest can have severe repercussions on the game as stories driven by this character are now left hanging without a resolution. very often in the purest of sandbox games i've seen and been in groups that simply puttered about directionless.

either way, as a GM you should make clear the intent of your campaign when you pitch it and as a player you should make a character that fits the pitched campaign.

[SowZ]

Recently, I have noticed an anti-linear gameplay movement.

The view: If the core of the game is not an open world or a sandbox, then it must be lazy, second rate or designed for twelve year old kids.

I disagree with this idea. Linear games have the most polished gameplay and memorable experiences. Linear games can actually tell a cohesive story where you can become vested in the character(s). Sandbox games are limited to a "main quest" or a loose framework that does not amount to much.

Sure, sandbox games offer the opportunity for more "innovative" gameplay moments, but are they really better?

{Scrubbed}

This is almost a story version of the Stormwind Fallacy. It assumes that Sandbox games have less polished gameplay, less memorable experiences, and lest investment in characters. For my part, I am more invested in characters when their decisions and their personal plots are the largest framers of the story.

In linear games, I tend to feel like the PCs are more interchangable. As in, the story would be relatively similar even if the PCs were different characters. In a more sandboxy game, the story would be completely different with different characters. Which, for me, leads to more investment.

As for memorable scenes, some of the most memorable scenes I know of happen when the players come up with an awesome and convuluted plan that, in a linear game, the DM might feel like he has to head off since it would completely derail the plot.

[NichG]

Linear doesn't really have to mean 'no effect' or 'no player agency', just as how sandbox doesn't guarantee that you matter one bit.

Look at computer games like Skyrim - its completely sandbox, but each little bit of the sandbox is pretty much going to resolve the same way when you engage in it. It gives you the illusion of true agency, but really the only choice you have is what order to do things in.

I think a pure sandbox has problems with momentum, personally. Players will eventually drift apart in their goals and interests, and you get to an awkward point where no one really knows what to do next (or they want to do everything during downtimes because they know that no one else will be on board with it).

The ideal case for me would be something that I might call a 'flexible linear game with small branches'. Basically, there are sidequests and side-plots and so on, but they don't dominate the play. There is a main plot and its basically going somewhere, but the players can change where its going through their actions.

Think of something like 'We're on a spaceship - it can only go one place at a time, and we're running out of fuel, so eventually we're going to not go anywhere if we haven't resolved this'. Yet the players can decide to do various things to solve the problem, and can end up going to different solar systems, even making different allies or enemies depending what they do for fuel. But they can't just decide 'No, we're not doing the fuel thing this week. Swimsuit episode!'. It retains momentum without saying that everything plays out independent of the players' actions.

I do think that some kind of driving force in the game is really essential. This could be provided by the players in a more sandboxy scenario, if they all agree ahead of time 'this is our goal'. But if its just 'hey we're a bunch of guys and there's this city' then in my experience the game is going to have a tendency to fall apart.

[Fighter1000]

Many wise words spoken on this thread. It has helped me much. Thanks, guys.
I am currently running a D&D 3.5 campaign and I realize now that it is probably too sandboxy for its own good. I need to change this, so that the players will feel more engaged and stop switching-out characters so much.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For my current campaign, I tried to run a complete sandbox. Several sessions later, my players have more or less built their own rails. Go figure.

Personally, both as a player and a DM I like situation-based games. That is, the quest hook says "go to this place and accomplish this goal," with the methods left up to the player. As a DM, I'll prepare the area with no thought to what my players can and can't do, and let them figure out a way to accomplish the goal-- that way, I'm not surprised when they forget they have power A/ reveal they have power B. As for plot-based player agency, I try never to write more than a session in advance-- maybe a "I want this event to happen somewhere down the road," but nothing concrete. That way, the players make choices and the plot shapes itself around them. Is that linear? Railroading? Sandbox?

[MukkTB]

The DM is around to provide flexibility to the world. If we wanted a game where the players couldn't make any choices already preprogrammed, we would play a computer game. Combat in a computer game is so much faster, and you get the added benefits of everything being visually presented.

Unfortunately computer game NPCs have there personality of a potato. If you're really lucky, you get the personality of a dialogue tree. You couldn't woo one. You can't invite one to come along adventuring with you. You can't become an enemy of one. Its only allowed if the programer went to the effort to make that part of the rails. Even then, there are a hundred other things that haven't been included. Most of the time you get the dialogue and skip it. This is before we even talk about player agency. Say I want to burn someone's house down because he pissed me off. I won't be allowed unless the programmer went out of his way to make it possible.

Again the benefits of a computer game is the satisfying visuals, the fun in skill related gameplay, the ease of combat, and the ability to play with just yourself. A badly railroaded game is one where you don't get any of that, but you seem to have cherry picked the worst parts of a computer game. If I'm going to have to deal with those things I'd rather fire up steam or watch a movie.

[GolemsVoice]

How do people jump from "not a sandbox" to "the players absolutely have to follow the rails 24/7"?

I often run more "linear" scenarios, in that I give the players a goal. Find X, kill Y, accomplish Z, whatever. HOW they solve that is up to the players, and I won't shoot any idea down as long as it's sensible. However, if you are sent out to kill a bad guy, he'll have a fortress there, and maybe these persons are his agents in the city. He won't suddenly be a pirate just because you bought a ship, so if you want to actually kill him, you'll have to somehow engage him. How they players do this is their thing, however.

I think this is a fair compromise between "total freedom, do whatever" and "no freedom, do what I want"

[Calmar]

I like linear campaigns! They allow for well thought-out plots and well-prepared places, NPCs and events, because the DM doesn't have to wing it all the time. The downside are the lack of player freedom due to the focus on the party as a whole instead of the single characters, and the necessity to do much preparation as a GM.

I plan my next game to be sandbox: I'll flesh out a region of my campaign world with its places, inhabitants and background-events. My players will have then the freedom to roam around and explore their own goals (as a party, or at times, on their own) and I will ~ hopefully ~ not have to come up with a huge amount of preparation for every session, once the initial work is done. :smallsmile:

[Lorsa]

All games are linear when looked in the mirror. There's usually no way of telling what type of play that generate said story. They all amount to "First we went there and did that, then we went to that other place and did this...".

Now I don't exactly know what people mean when they say "sandbox" (and half the time I don't think they do either), and the definition seem to vary from person to person. I can say one thing though, and that is that pre-planned story (that is, a full plot) is never fun to play in a role-playing sense. It's great to read in books, or watch on TV or experience as a computer game. That is where it belongs.

I had a player once ask me something like "Is it okay if I do X?" (where X was a really big thing story-wise). I looked at him stunned and said "Why wouldn't it be?" to which he replied "It doesn't ruin your plan or anything?". So I told him straight up that he can't ruin my Plan because I don't have one. Yes I have an idea of what the next 4 or so independant missions will be but if you decide you no longer want to work for your current employer and head off to somewhere far away to do something totally different then that's what you should do!

I feel sort of sad for the hobby that players ask these types of questions. In a roleplaying game the main characters, the antoganists, the only ones that truly matters are the players. I might question their choices if I think they are doing something very strange, or point out certain details they have overlooked but I would never ever force them to do something or limit their freedom. In a roleplaying game, as a player, you are supposed to be able to do whatever you want. If you're not then it's no longer fun.

I also find it strange when GM's decide beforehand how something can be solved. More often than not, I have no idea how problems I present will be solved. I know that they can (and might have a vague idea what these ways are), but it's for the players to figure out how. And not figure out how I meant for it to be solved, as in insert key X in hole Y, but to come up with a solution on their own. Sometimes they end up being very simple and hardly involving the players at all (using contact X to get in touch with person Y and then make a deal to locate person Z that had to be tracked down). Other times they are more complicated.

Being actors in a script is fun if you're an actor in a play. But then you are usually handed the script beforehand so you know what to do. Being forced to follow an invisible script that only one person know about... how will that ever work out fun for anyone?

[Calmar]

I had a player once ask me something like "Is it okay if I do X?" (where X was a really big thing story-wise). I looked at him stunned and said "Why wouldn't it be?" to which he replied "It doesn't ruin your plan or anything?". So I told him straight up that he can't ruin my Plan because I don't have one. Yes I have an idea of what the next 4 or so independant missions will be but if you decide you no longer want to work for your current employer and head off to somewhere far away to do something totally different then that's what you should do!

I feel sort of sad for the hobby that players ask these types of questions. In a roleplaying game the main characters, the antoganists, the only ones that truly matters are the players. I might question their choices if I think they are doing something very strange, or point out certain details they have overlooked but I would never ever force them to do something or limit their freedom. In a roleplaying game, as a player, you are supposed to be able to do whatever you want. If you're not then it's no longer fun.


Linear doesn't mean railroad. If the players agree and enjoy a linear game, the plot might look like this:


The players are tasked to escort a caravan to a remote outpost.
They find their destination ruined and among the charred ruins they discover an item that obviously belongs to the attackers (a symbol, an amulet, etc).
They then are asked to find out who is responsible for the attack, while the rest of the caravan begins to re-build the outpost.
The characters are attacked by raiders wearing the same items the chacters found among the ruins.
The inhabitants of a nearby hamlet the characters stumble upon refuse to reveal any information, but obviously know something. The heroes use their investigative skills to discover that the clue they found leads to a circle of druids.
and so on until the climatic resolution of the plot.


Of course the players could ignore the plot at any point, or decide to leave, but they don't - because the group agreed on a linear adventure beforehand. :smallsmile:


I also find it strange when GM's decide beforehand how something can be solved. More often than not, I have no idea how problems I present will be solved. I know that they can (and might have a vague idea what these ways are), but it's for the players to figure out how. And not figure out how I meant for it to be solved, as in insert key X in hole Y, but to come up with a solution on their own. Sometimes they end up being very simple and hardly involving the players at all (using contact X to get in touch with person Y and then make a deal to locate person Z that had to be tracked down). Other times they are more complicated.

Of course a DM has to be flexible, but it's possible to create a situation that has a very predictable number of outcomes. If you, say, pose your players a riddle, or a mathematical problem to solve, then there are likely only one, or two, sollutions ~ but no infinite, or negotionable number. Again, it depends on the preferences of you and your group.

[Lorsa]

Linear doesn't mean railroad. If the players agree and enjoy a linear game, the plot might look like this:


The players are tasked to escort a caravan to a remote outpost.
They find their destination ruined and among the charred ruins they discover an item that obviously belongs to the attackers (a symbol, an amulet, etc).
They then are asked to find out who is responsible for the attack, while the rest of the caravan begins to re-build the outpost.
The characters are attacked by raiders wearing the same items the chacters found among the ruins.
The inhabitants of a nearby hamlet the characters stumble upon refuse to reveal any information, but obviously know something. The heroes use their investigative skills to discover that the clue they found leads to a circle of druids.
and so on until the climatic resolution of the plot.


Of course the players could ignore the plot at any point, or decide to leave, but they don't - because the group agreed on a linear adventure beforehand. :smallsmile:

The listed adventure could come up from any type of play - that is all stories look linear when watched in the mirror. If the players are agreeing to follow a certain plot then it is voluntary railroading but railroading nonetheless.

But linear games do not have to be bad, I completely agree. Linear games can work very well. Pre-scripted games though do not. Also, games that hinges on the players making a certain decision or doing thing X at encounter Y or else the game will just stop do not work well either. But it is useful I believe, to understand properly what we all mean by 'linear', 'railroading' and 'sandbox' because I often feel people use these words with different meanings.


Of course a DM has to be flexible, but it's possible to create a situation that has a very predictable number of outcomes. If you, say, pose your players a riddle, or a mathematical problem to solve, then there are likely only one, or two, sollutions ~ but no infinite, or negotionable number. Again, it depends on the preferences of you and your group.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html

[Amidus Drexel]

Of course a DM has to be flexible, but it's possible to create a situation that has a very predictable number of outcomes. If you, say, pose your players a riddle, or a mathematical problem to solve, then there are likely only one, or two, sollutions ~ but no infinite, or negotionable number. Again, it depends on the preferences of you and your group.

I always liked the idea of a riddle with no set answer; the correct answer is the first thing they suggest that makes sense. :smallbiggrin:

[Radar]

I always liked the idea of a riddle with no set answer; the correct answer is the first thing they suggest that makes sense. :smallbiggrin:
Or you know, this (http://drmcninja.com/archives/comic/14p27/) kind of riddle trap. :smalltongue:

[Madeiner]

I think people really think of "linear" as in "fixed direction" games.

My games are mostly linear, but not going in a fixed direction all the time.
At each point in time, i draw a "line" of events that will follow, not going too far into the future. Each time something happens because of the players, i re-evaluate all the consequences and change the line direction.

I'm currently playing steampunk eberron for example, players are part of a secret agency.
Currently the line is set to "steal from a bank and go to the next mission".
If they fail the heist, the new line becomes "deal with the failure, by timetraveling to the past and trying again".
If they get caught, the line is now "escape the prison and reform a group".

I think the secret is having an ever-changing line, that evolves thanks to in-game characters actions and out-of-game players choices and preferences.

[Calmar]

The listed adventure could come up from any type of play - that is all stories look linear when watched in the mirror. If the players are agreeing to follow a certain plot then it is voluntary railroading but railroading nonetheless.

To my understanding it is not railroading to give the players a plausible option that leads to an anticipated outcome. I'd call it roading - the provision of a limited number of possible directions that the players are most likely to take. :smalltongue:

'Cause all the sandbox games I've seen basically amounted to hanging about without aim or direction.


But linear games do not have to be bad, I completely agree. Linear games can work very well. Pre-scripted games though do not. Also, games that hinges on the players making a certain decision or doing thing X at encounter Y or else the game will just stop do not work well either. But it is useful I believe, to understand properly what we all mean by 'linear', 'railroading' and 'sandbox' because I often feel people use these words with different meanings.

To me, sandbox should refer to a game where there is a well-detailed world with events and NPCs the players can explore however they like. Like, for example, literally exploring the map of a region and dealing with the hooks they stumble uppon.

Sandbox should not mean that the DM provides neither box, nor sand, and instead expects the players to come up with goals out of the blue.



http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html

I actually don't get what you suggest with that strip. We don't know if the hypothetical DM has anything prepared for the wrong way to the right ~ and if the PCs are expected to chose the left path, it ultimately doesn't matter how the decide to go that way, as long as they do so. :smallbiggrin:

[Rhynn]

then it is voluntary railroading but railroading nonetheless.

Nope, it only ever becomes railroading once you can't get off the tracks.

Story, plotline, module, limited area of play, etc., does not equal railroad. "Railroad" is not a synonym to "linear game."

Railroading is when the GM forces the players onto a specific path when they try to go somewhere else.

"We go this way." "The pass is snowed in." "Well, then we dig through the snow." "Ten snow trolls show up." "We fight!" "No, they knock you out. You wake up [where I wanted you to go]."

"We go that way." "The bridge is out." "We rebuild it." "You uh can't." "Why not?" "You don't know how." "Well we'll go find a bridgebuilder in town." "There aren't any."


To me, sandbox should refer to a game where there is a well-detailed world with events and NPCs the players can explore however they like. Like, for example, literally exploring the map of a region and dealing with the hooks they stumble uppon.

Sandbox should not mean that the DM provides neither box, nor sand, and instead expects the players to come up with goals out of the blue.

This is absolutely true.

The classical "sandbox" (there wasn't a term for it, back in the day; it was the default...) is necessarily of limited scope (determined by how long the GM has been fleshing it out; some have spent decades). If you don't limit the scope, it won't be much good. If your players insist on constantly going outside the areas you've detailed, and the moment you detail the new area they leave that, too, then you've got defective players or you're not putting enough interesting things in the areas to play with.

The classic sandbox is, for instance, Waterdeep, Undermountain, and the North around them. That's a "limited" scope in the sense that it's a small portion of the world of Faerûn, but it's huge in terms of the amount of adventures you can have in it.

[Ozfer]

As a dungeon master, I feel that everyone misses the third category of game-type, which I like to call Plot-Box. I supply a major threat, plus a supply of potential allies, villains, and neutral entities, and let the players run with it.

A good example (I hope), is the game I'm currently running. The heroes were the inhabitants of a country under constant siege by raiding orcs and goblins, but recently the monsters have united.

All I know is what all the NPCs would do without PC intervention. Each action they take, I adjust the world accordingly. For instance, if the players come across a troll and some orcs, and they kill the troll, it won't be present at the coming siege (If they are there at all!).


EDIT- Having read more of the thread, I actually do exactly what Madeiner described.

[Amidus Drexel]

As a dungeon master, I feel that everyone misses the third category of game-type, which I like to call Plot-Box. I supply a major threat, plus a supply of potential allies, villains, and neutral entities, and let the players run with it.

A good example (I hope), is the game I'm currently running. The heroes were the inhabitants of a country under constant siege by raiding orcs and goblins, but recently the monsters have united.

All I know is what all the NPCs would do without PC intervention. Each action they take, I adjust the world accordingly. For instance, if the players come across a troll and some orcs, and they kill the troll, it won't be present at the coming siege (If they are there at all!).


I pretty much do this. The NPCs work towards their goals, whether or not the players interact with them. Eventually, things happen. If the PCs happen to be where things are happening, they participate. If they do something that would affect an NPC's goals, then more things change. The adventures they follow are the ones that interest them. If nothing interests them, they normally go looking for trouble. I spend a good three quarters (or more) of the game improvising, which has had some interesting results.

I still think sandbox is the right term for it, though.

[Amphetryon]

As a dungeon master, I feel that everyone misses the third category of game-type, which I like to call Plot-Box. I supply a major threat, plus a supply of potential allies, villains, and neutral entities, and let the players run with it.

A good example (I hope), is the game I'm currently running. The heroes were the inhabitants of a country under constant siege by raiding orcs and goblins, but recently the monsters have united.

All I know is what all the NPCs would do without PC intervention. Each action they take, I adjust the world accordingly. For instance, if the players come across a troll and some orcs, and they kill the troll, it won't be present at the coming siege (If they are there at all!).


EDIT- Having read more of the thread, I actually do exactly what Madeiner described.
I have referred to this in the past as "Schrodinger's Railroad," and have had complaints leveled against my DMing in the past on those grounds. The complaint here has been that what the DM offers is merely the illusion of choice, without an actually meaningful way to get away from the story the DM is trying to tell in the first place.

[king.com]

This is seriously the best spambot ever.

[Scow2]

I have referred to this in the past as "Schrodinger's Railroad," and have had complaints leveled against my DMing in the past on those grounds. The complaint here has been that what the DM offers is merely the illusion of choice, without an actually meaningful way to get away from the story the DM is trying to tell in the first place.

That is incorrect abuse of the term "Schroedinger's Railroad". Schroe's Road is, say, having an artifact that can be in one of two different locations be in 'the one the party does/doesn't go to' instead of a predetermined location. What Ozfer and Maediner describe is a 'constrained' campaign, where there is still an ultimate goal with opportunities for sidequests and 'backdoors".

There is a significant difference between "In this campaign, you're a band of heroes setting out to solve problem X. Here are a few leads," than an actually-railroaded campaign.

Order of The Stick's campaign is a "linear" one, but it's not a "railroaded" one.

[Rhynn]

I have referred to this in the past as "Schrodinger's Railroad," and have had complaints leveled against my DMing in the past on those grounds. The complaint here has been that what the DM offers is merely the illusion of choice, without an actually meaningful way to get away from the story the DM is trying to tell in the first place.

How could that possibly be related to what you quoted? Ozfer and Madeiner described a pretty basic "open-world with something interesting going on." That's a type of sandbox. Sandbox worlds can and should have big things going on in them that the PCs can affect. I guess the difference is mostly one of focus - does the GM assume the PCs will focus on this particular thing?

Like Scow2 says, "Schrödinger's Railroad" means that whichever choices the PCs make (whichever road they go down, whichever city they go to, whichever dungeon they enter, etc.), the result is the exact same - there's no choice, just an illusion of choice. It's not obnoxious the way true railroading is, and you can probably get away with it fine - at least until the PCs are specifically trying to avoid your plot (but that's being a bad player; if the players actually hate the plot, they should talk to the GM).

[Armaius]

I'm still a relatively new D&D player, so this might sound silly but this is how I've come to understand it:

Its all about interaction between the players and the GM. They are, essentially, working together to tell a story. The GM is there to provide a framework - a world, a story - that the players can function in. (S)he's there to provide plot hooks and stories that the players can pursue - or ignore, and deal with the consequences later. (Our DM mentioned after our session that there were going to be consequences later down the line for the entire planet because we ignored a plot hook). I liked that touch - consequences for our actions or inaction, personally.

It's up to the players to explore and pursue the hooks given by the GM. They decide how things are going to advance, what direction they're going to, how they're going to react the NPCs etc. The GM needs to be flexible to adapt to changing situations - since what the players do is unlikely to match to how he thought his story would advance.

Its like an interesting mix of improv acting/writing a novel as a group. With dice.

[Lorsa]

I actually don't get what you suggest with that
strip. We don't know if the hypothetical DM has anything prepared for the wrong way to the right ~ and if the PCs are expected to chose the left path, it ultimately doesn't matter how the decide to go that way, as long as they do so. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, it was as a fun side comment to the having riddles or mathematical equation with only one right answer. Even riddles can have solutions the GM didn't forsee. :)

[Calmar]

I'm still a relatively new D&D player, so this might sound silly but this is how I've come to understand it:

Its all about interaction between the players and the GM. They are, essentially, working together to tell a story. The GM is there to provide a framework - a world, a story - that the players can function in. (S)he's there to provide plot hooks and stories that the players can pursue - or ignore, and deal with the consequences later. (Our DM mentioned after our session that there were going to be consequences later down the line for the entire planet because we ignored a plot hook). I liked that touch - consequences for our actions or inaction, personally.

It's up to the players to explore and pursue the hooks given by the GM. They decide how things are going to advance, what direction they're going to, how they're going to react the NPCs etc. The GM needs to be flexible to adapt to changing situations - since what the players do is unlikely to match to how he thought his story would advance.

Its like an interesting mix of improv acting/writing a novel as a group. With dice.

That's basically a good example of a sandbox game to me. It's the ideal state of gaming as far as I can tell.

However, there are two circumstances that make it sensible to limit this amount of freedom in favour of a linear type of game:

The players don't (want to, or cannot) come up with anything interesting to do by themselves.
"What are you going to do?"
--"Well, ehm, I'll get a something to eat".
"Ok, and then?"
--"Uh, I'll rent a room for the night."
":smallsigh: :smallfrown:"

DMing is work and time is short;
if your choice lies between 'follow the adventure' and 'no gaming', you'll probably chose the former and honour what the DM comes up with, even if it doesn't allow you to really deviate from the main plot.

[Rhynn]

The players don't (want to, or cannot) come up with anything interesting to do by themselves.
"What are you going to do?"
--"Well, ehm, I'll get a something to eat".
"Ok, and then?"
--"Uh, I'll rent a room for the night."
":smallsigh: :smallfrown:"

DMing is work and time is short;
if your choice lies between 'follow the adventure' and 'no gaming', you'll probably chose the former and honour what the DM comes up with, even if it doesn't allow you to really deviate from the main plot.

These problems have the same answer:

Create an interesting setting.

It's really that simple. There's many ways to do it. My favorite is to start with a dungeon, because that completely negates the player problem - any time they don't know what to do, they can go explore the dungeon (and discover more hooks). If you also have an interesting wilderness (preferraby on an old-school hex map), they can just strike out in a random direction and see what they find. And then you just improve off of whatever notes and random tables you have.

It also means each session requires less work from the GM than making an adveture would.

[Lorsa]

Nope, it only ever becomes railroading once you can't get off the tracks.

Story, plotline, module, limited area of play, etc., does not equal railroad. "Railroad" is not a synonym to "linear game."

Railroading is when the GM forces the players onto a specific path when they try to go somewhere else.

"We go this way." "The pass is snowed in." "Well, then we dig through the snow." "Ten snow trolls show up." "We fight!" "No, they knock you out. You wake up [where I wanted you to go]."

"We go that way." "The bridge is out." "We rebuild it." "You uh can't." "Why not?" "You don't know how." "Well we'll go find a bridgebuilder in town." "There aren't any."

Yes, railroading is when you can't get off the tracks and yes it's not the same as linear game, just as linear game is not in opposition to a sandbox game in my opinion.

What I meant with voluntary railroading was that it seemed he proposed a game that would go like this:

"We go this way!" "The pass in snowed in." "Alright, we go that way then." "The bridge is out." (players realize the GM wants to go the third way or maybe not go anywhere at all if there isn't any more roads) "Ok, we follow the trail through the woods." "Aha! You find..." etc

In this scenario the players have chosen to follow the rails put down by the GM - thus voluntary railroading. They don't challenge the GM's ideas and take hints he presented to go wherever he has planned the next step to be.

[Amphetryon]

How could that possibly be related to what you quoted? Ozfer and Madeiner described a pretty basic "open-world with something interesting going on." That's a type of sandbox. Sandbox worlds can and should have big things going on in them that the PCs can affect. I guess the difference is mostly one of focus - does the GM assume the PCs will focus on this particular thing?

Like Scow2 says, "Schrödinger's Railroad" means that whichever choices the PCs make (whichever road they go down, whichever city they go to, whichever dungeon they enter, etc.), the result is the exact same - there's no choice, just an illusion of choice. It's not obnoxious the way true railroading is, and you can probably get away with it fine - at least until the PCs are specifically trying to avoid your plot (but that's being a bad player; if the players actually hate the plot, they should talk to the GM).

The argument goes:
1. The DM knows everything that happens in the world.

2. No matter which thing the Characters try to do in the world, they are still forced to follow a plot set forward by the DM. . . in other words, a railroad.

3. This indicates that choices made to avoid being forced upon a path pre-ordained by the DM are either superficial or illusory, or both.

[Rhynn]

The argument goes:
1. The DM knows everything that happens in the world.

2. No matter which thing the Characters try to do in the world, they are still forced to follow a plot set forward by the DM. . . in other words, a railroad.

3. This indicates that choices made to avoid being forced upon a path pre-ordained by the DM are either superficial or illusory, or both.

That is the dumbest argument.

Premise 1 is false. The GM does not know beforehand what will happen, because the PCs' actions cause things to happen.

Premise 2 is false and just an assertion blatantly obviously not true.

Thus, the conclusion is invalid. Not that you need to even negate the premises to see this. If the PC decide to go into the High Forest instead of the Undermountain, they've made a choice that determines what happens.

It's almost unbelievable how little idea people have about what railroading means.


"We go this way!" "The pass in snowed in." "Alright, we go that way then." "The bridge is out." (players realize the GM wants to go the third way or maybe not go anywhere at all if there isn't any more roads) "Ok, we follow the trail through the woods." "Aha! You find..." etc

In this scenario the players have chosen to follow the rails put down by the GM - thus voluntary railroading. They don't challenge the GM's ideas and take hints he presented to go wherever he has planned the next step to be.

That just looks like regular railroading to me. It's only a matter of how outrageous it gets before the PCs go along with it. The GM actually narrating where they go is just one of the most extreme forms. The GM pretty much always wins this stand-off.


Incidentally, you can get this in a sandbox, too. For instance, if a GM doesn't have some region of a megadungeon prepped yet, it's too easy to resort to having the ways into it barred, which may just encourage the players ("A locked door?! We have to get through it!"), which forces the GM to come up with worse and worse excuses for why they can't get through.

[Lorsa]

Incidentally, you can get this in a sandbox, too. For instance, if a GM doesn't have some region of a megadungeon prepped yet, it's too easy to resort to having the ways into it barred, which may just encourage the players ("A locked door?! We have to get through it!"), which forces the GM to come up with worse and worse excuses for why they can't get through.

So that's what? A railroaded sandbox? What's wrong with improvising or taking a break until tomorrow? Or at the very least come up with a good excuse...

I guess the conclusion is really that there's nothing wrong with linear games but there is something wrong with railroading?

[The_Jackal]

Because linear gameplay usually involves hackneyed devices to force your character to do STUPID things. It also doesn't really leverage the interactive nature of gaming. Want to tell me a linear story? Fire up a movie, son.

[SimonMoon6]

Here are the sorts of games I've run:

(1) A game in which the PCs were free to explore an entire multiverse. They were able to find ways to gain powers, abilities, and magic items based on what they know of these universes. Many of the adventures revolved around their attempts to explore or the unfortunate consequences of their actions (like letting big villains know that there's a multiverse to explore). There was a recurring villain that they had to deal with occasionally as well.

(2) A game in which the PCs were stuck on a patchwork world, made of pieces of different universes with different rules. Each "patch" had one crystal that could power up the PCs, so the PCs needed to find as many as possible. However, there were dozens and dozens of locations where they could go, so they could choose which adventures they wanted to go on... but they also had to be careful and sneaky because they had some vastly more powerful enemies looking for them, so the PCs needed to try to power up as much as possible before they were found.

(3) A straightforward superhero game in which the PCs had to wait for villains to take actions. Then the heroes could beat up the villains.

(4) A straightforward D&D game where the PCs had to wait for an adventure to show up, so they could go on the adventure.

(5) Another straightforward superhero game in which the PCs had to wait for villains to do stuff. Then the heroes could beat up the villains.

(6) A Call of Cthulhu game in which the PCs had to wait for a plot hook to show up before they could do anything.

(7) Another Call of Cthulhu game in which the PCs had to wait for a plot hook to show up before they could do anything.

And so forth. There are probably a lot more games of types (3) through (7) that I'm forgetting to list.

And yet, out of all the games I've run, games 1 & 2 were probably the most memorable games, the ones that the players enjoyed the most. It might be because of the unusual natures of those games, but I think the "sandbox" nature of those games was a big contributing factor.

[Need_A_Life]

I think it says something about this community that even a spambot can start a nice conversation and exchange of ideas :smallsmile:

Yes, at times there won't be actual choice, just the illusion of such. That's done as a shortcut because not every GM has as much time to prepare as they'd like. If I have "Schrödingers Monster" who will either be working for group A or group B, depending on who the PCs side with, then that just saved me statting out another creature, freeing up that time to prepare a plot instead.

[Amphetryon]

That is the dumbest argument.

Premise 1 is false. The GM does not know beforehand what will happen, because the PCs' actions cause things to happen.

Premise 2 is false and just an assertion blatantly obviously not true.

Thus, the conclusion is invalid. Not that you need to even negate the premises to see this. If the PC decide to go into the High Forest instead of the Undermountain, they've made a choice that determines what happens.

It's almost unbelievable how little idea people have about what railroading means.

Aside from the borderline ad hominems. . .
Premise 1 is only false if the DM doesn't understand the motivations of the NPCs in the world. If he does, then he knows how they'll react to a given action by the PCs. If he doesn't, that's its own set of issues with the DM not understanding the NPCs he's portraying, or the Players he's DMing for, or both.

I'm going to ask that you explain why Premise 2 is "blatantly obviously not true;" your assertion of such with no evidence does not make it so, by my understanding.

[AgentofHellfire]

Aside from the borderline ad hominems. . .
Premise 1 is only false if the DM doesn't understand the motivations of the NPCs in the world. If he does, then he knows how they'll react to a given action by the PCs. If he doesn't, that's its own set of issues with the DM not understanding the NPCs he's portraying, or the Players he's DMing for, or both.

...but...the DM doesn't know about every action the PCs can take, which actions they'll take, or whom they'll interact with.

Yeah, there may be a small limit to choices, but it's like the small limit to the number of possible moves in chess--practically invisible.

Railroading is when you make the number of choices way smaller.


As for premise 2:

First of all, there are games out there that don't have an outright plot, just worlds, characters, and things that could be subject to a PC's agenda. An example would be, for one thing, chat RPs.

Second of all, having a plot=/=having a detailed understanding of what PCs will be doing when.

[Gavinfoxx]

Hmmm... *googles* Found this thread in several places:

http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/showthread.php?16593-Open-world-vs-linear-world-games-thoughts-amp-ideas&p=131390

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/forum/showthread.php?p=5655439

http://relaunch-forums.gametrailers.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1348206

http://www.fanforum.com/f45/open-world-vs-linear-world-games-thoughts-ideas-63089527/

http://www.pcgamer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26704

http://www.theimforum.com/threads/9521-Why-All-the-Linear-Game-Hate?

http://www.webmastertalkforums.com/games/93617-why-all-linear-game-hate.html

I think this person might not have been a bot, but an actual person posting this discussion in as many places as possible, perhaps?

[The Glyphstone]

Bot or not, it was a spammer, before the link to.....wholesale cashmere scarves or something....got edited out.

And looking at those links, every one of those posts also has a ad link at the bottom...

[Rhynn]

So that's what? A railroaded sandbox? What's wrong with improvising or taking a break until tomorrow? Or at the very least come up with a good excuse...

Railroading isn't a type of game, it's a GMing technique. (Or a malfunction in your GM, depending on how you look at it.


I guess the conclusion is really that there's nothing wrong with linear games but there is something wrong with railroading?

Exactly. Linear games are a matter of taste (I generally dislike them, although for some genres they work very well; possibly better than open models; cyberpunk, horror, non-pulp/non-space opera scifi, etc.), but railroading is always bad. I really doubt there is any player anywhere ever who would be happy about being blatantly/overtly railroaded. (However, I will grant that sometimes it can get a pass, see below.)


Because linear gameplay usually involves hackneyed devices to force your character to do STUPID things. It also doesn't really leverage the interactive nature of gaming. Want to tell me a linear story? Fire up a movie, son.

Not necessarily.

The big problem with linear games (which often leads to railroading by poor or plain inexperienced GMs) is that the players may not go along. For instance I've got a short Call of Cthulhu episode/adventure where the PCs are invited to a friend's house on Nantucket and investigate a mystery. It's fairly linear - unless the PCs prevent them, certain things happen at certain times on certain days. If the players are happy to play along, it can work great without any problems for anyone. If the players decide to leave Nantucket, I'm SOL - all I can do is "okay, you leave and a week later you hear that..." That's unsatisfying and kind of awful.

This brings up a related issue: sometimes railroading is a legitimate plot device. For instance, in the above scenario, maybe the weather is too bad for anyone to leave Nantucket (with 1920s boats). I feel the difference is whether you're inventing things to on the spot to block players' ideas, or whether the limitation was established beforehand. If there was no prior mention of storm and bad weather, it's going to at least look like railroading (and really, the perception of railroading is as bad for the game as anything). Limiting the scope of your scenario is not, IMO, ever railroading per se, but if the players feel railroaded you've got a problem.


Aside from the borderline ad hominems. . .
Premise 1 is only false if the DM doesn't understand the motivations of the NPCs in the world. If he does, then he knows how they'll react to a given action by the PCs. If he doesn't, that's its own set of issues with the DM not understanding the NPCs he's portraying, or the Players he's DMing for, or both.

I'm going to ask that you explain why Premise 2 is "blatantly obviously not true;" your assertion of such with no evidence does not make it so, by my understanding.

The GM is incapable of ever thinking of, beforehand, of every PC action and every reaction. In fact, I'd say that the subset of both that the GM is capable of conceiving of beforehand is so tiny that it is absolutely inevitable that during many (even almost all) sessions of play, the GM will have to think on his or her feet to respond to PC actions. The first premise is false.

The second premise assumes an altogether too liberal definition of "plot." Can we agree that "plot" implies that the GM has written out, beforehand, at least an outline of what will happen? In that case, it is absolutely not true that the GM's plot will always be followed - it is perfectly possible to sit down at the table and say "okay, where are you going?" and let the PCs lead the game, reacting to them. Yes, if you're a good GM, you're going to be drawing on elements (characters, locations, events) you had at least outlined beforehand, but unless your definition of "following a plot" is so liberal that "the PCs go into the Undermountain and things happen" qualifies as a "plot," the second premise is not true.

The argument you presented (I generously assumed, and continue to assume, it's not your argument as such) seems to hinge on defining "plot" so loosely as to mean that any sequence of events can retroactively by considered a plot, which is such a loose definition that the word "plot" becomes useless.

Railroading means blocking PC choices, decisions, and actions to force them onto a specific course of action/adventure.

[Amphetryon]

Rhynn, your definition of "railroading" is not the exclusive benchmark for the term among RPG hobbyists. That is all.

[huttj509]

Rhys, your definition of "railroading" is not the exclusive benchmark for the term among RPG hobbyists. That is all.

There IS no exclusive benchmark for the term. There's not even a solid "agreed upon meaning for this forum." It's overloaded terminology, which should ideally be avoided in discussions, simply because it's overloaded, and thus loses descriptive capability.

As a simple example, I've seen in discussions where people hold the definition that railroading is always a problem. If it's the exact same DM actions, but does not cause an issue, then by their description it's not railroading. This sort of difference tends to come up in reactions to "railroading isn't always bad" posts, because among a number of people, it IS, if it's not bad, it's not Railroading.

That stance is not incorrect. It's using a poorly-defined term in a different manner than someone else using the same poorly-defined term. Neither stance is correct, per se, as the problem is that the term is poorly defined. The discussion gets polarized, because the discussers are using the same word to mean different things (probably unintentionally, or through knowing there's a difference there, but feeling their version is the correct one...unfortunately, we have no codified third party to check definitions in gaming slang).

[Jerthanis]

Personally, about the best type of game is one in which the DM forms a linear plot that is interesting and engaging around the goals and motivations of the characters that the players come to the table with.

For instance, if the players all come up with Charlatans and Shysters, Confidence men and thieves, and then they're presented with a sandboxy world where they can steal until they get enough money for retirement, and that's what the game is going to be, stealing and avoiding the law until rich, I'd be a little disappointed.

If instead, this group of Charlatans and Conmen are blackmailed into putting their talents to work for an enemy, and the linear plot of the game involves their reluctance to work for their enemy's benefit, and involves figuring out how to break free of the influence and pull the greatest deception ever, leaving their enemies empty handed and stomping their hats in frustration, that'd be far more awesome in my mind.

Or alternatively if a GM comes to his group and says, "I want to tell a story about a group of Samurai who are put between a rock and a hard place, unable to satisfy their personal honor, their Lord's wishes and their own consciences at the same time." and the players make characters for whom that conflict is going to be interesting to play out and they work together to form the linear plot.

Open and honest communication is the fastest path to a great game, regardless whether the game is linear or sandboxy.

[GoatToucher]

At its best, roleplay is improvisational theater. One of the basic tenets of improv is that you not negate the premise laid down by another cast member.

For example, if your cast mate says "Sit down, Bob: you're drunk." you do not say "No I'm not!"

Unless its funny. Rule #1 is the rule of funny, similar to our rule of cool.

So if your GM puts you all together in a small inn on Nantucket island, it is bad form for you to immediately say "I leave the island." You are negating his premise, and undermining his efforts to make entertaining theater.

Similarly, if you say "I go downstairs and get piss drunk with the whalers." it is bad form for the GM to negate your premise. You are trying to create good theater as well, given the character you have to work with.

However, neither side should take this gentleperson's agreement as carte blanche to be a **** (the so called "Wheaton's Law" is a good tenet to ascribe to). The GM would be remiss if he put you in a situation that runs specifically contrary to what you have established with your character, or things that are outright humiliating. You would be remiss if you started acting like Daffy Duck in one of his early appearances. Pretty much, if you are doing something purely for your own amusement, and not for the enjoyment of the ensemble as a whole, you are not being a helpful participant. Your own enjoyment is only important so long as it does not detract from the enjoyment of the group. That goes for PCs and GMs alike.

[MukkTB]

I like Rhynn's definition. Its OK for the DM to chart a theoretical course across the action. Its OK the DM didn't go into details on the next town over because it isn't part of the plot. Railroading is when the players decide they want to go to the next town over and the DM denies them the ability to do so.

In a sandbox game the DM just moves on. Maybe a week later in game he tells the players the goblins were unopposed and took over the town. Then he erases the town from the map and replaces it with "Goblin Warcamp."

In a linear game the DM may explain to the characters that the adventure is here, out of character. If push comes to shove he'll let the players leave although that might trigger a game over. "And so the band of adventurers left Hill Valley never to return. They had successfully swindled the town out of its gold with promises of help they never intended to keep. A week later the Goblins overran the defenses." It isn't uncommon in linear games for the DM to establish boundaries early on. A storm or something that would make leaving the bounds difficult.

In the railroad game the party tries to leave but suddenly there is a storm that comes up. They get cold weather outfits together but they find there's a monster in the woods the characters are too scared to go past. When they try to sail away, something sinks the boat. When they try to escape across the underdark they're captured by guys and brought back to town. After finally agreeing to stay the party tries to train the town residents to fight. The locals refuse to learn. After all the party is supposed to go into the goblin lair and kill the goblins themselves.

The linear game is fine. Its the railroad one that's terrible.

[Calmar]

I like Rhynn's definition. Its OK for the DM to chart a theoretical course across the action. Its OK the DM didn't go into details on the next town over because it isn't part of the plot. Railroading is when the players decide they want to go to the next town over and the DM denies them the ability to do so.

In a sandbox game the DM just moves on. Maybe a week later in game he tells the players the goblins were unopposed and took over the town. Then he erases the town from the map and replaces it with "Goblin Warcamp."

In a linear game the DM may explain to the characters that the adventure is here, out of character. If push comes to shove he'll let the players leave although that might trigger a game over. "And so the band of adventurers left Hill Valley never to return. They had successfully swindled the town out of its gold with promises of help they never intended to keep. A week later the Goblins overran the defenses." It isn't uncommon in linear games for the DM to establish boundaries early on. A storm or something that would make leaving the bounds difficult.

In the railroad game the party tries to leave but suddenly there is a storm that comes up. They get cold weather outfits together but they find there's a monster in the woods the characters are too scared to go past. When they try to sail away, something sinks the boat. When they try to escape across the underdark they're captured by guys and brought back to town. After finally agreeing to stay the party tries to train the town residents to fight. The locals refuse to learn. After all the party is supposed to go into the goblin lair and kill the goblins themselves.

The linear game is fine. Its the railroad one that's terrible.

That's some excellent advice. Thanks! It's important to keep in mind that things develop even if the PCs don't participate. :smallsmile:

[Rhynn]

That's some excellent advice. Thanks! It's important to keep in mind that things develop even if the PCs don't participate. :smallsmile:

Absolutely. That is, to me, the hallmark of a good setting, regardless of whether you consider it a "sandbox" or not: it lives. Wars and intrigues and natural disasters happen when the PCs are not around. When I key a hexmap with interesting things, I try to think of how I can develop them later. Sometimes, I may even create timelines for things that happen a certain way unless the PCs interfere.

To me, the purpose of PCs is to come in and mess up everything I've created - that's the game, and the fun. I embraced this after my players completely thrashed a fortunately very loosely sketched set of intrigues by killing one of the main players and getting themselves effectively exiled - and it wasn't frustrating to me, it was fun.

[GolemsVoice]

Regarding the Natucket example: well, if it's clear that it'll be a one shot, and that you created the story to take place in Nantucket, I'd consider it rude of your players to leave, because they're basically saying that they don't want your adventure. So maybe they COULD leave. They shouldn't, however, provided the characters have some motivation to actually be there and the adventure's good.

[Rhynn]

Regarding the Natucket example: well, if it's clear that it'll be a one shot, and that you created the story to take place in Nantucket, I'd consider it rude of your players to leave, because they're basically saying that they don't want your adventure. So maybe they COULD leave. They shouldn't, however, provided the characters have some motivation to actually be there and the adventure's good.

It's all about player buy-in / commitment, I guess: in creating a scenario of limited scope, you have to make the players buy into it and want to take part in it. But it's also about "playing right" - the players can't just avoid all danger or act like normal, rational people (unless that's what the game is about, in which case it can presumably accommodate that). It baffles me that some players seem to actually think they should avoid anything dangerous. (A problem of motivations, both for the player and the PC.)

[Gavinfoxx]

We forgot the most important thing! What do people think of 'Evening Bags' hat seem to be quite important to the OP in all those forums? ;) ;)

Oddly, the bot put the link in their sig, rather than elsewhere... verrrryyyy subtle...

[Carry2]

Sure, sandbox games offer the opportunity for more "innovative" gameplay moments, but are they really better?
I'm probably just echoing what others in this thread have been saying, but I don't personally have a particular problem with 'linear' gameplay, as long as (A) the presenter/organiser is honest about it, and (B) whatever mechanics I do get influence over are interesting. (As opposed to campaigns where I'm told I have freedom, but all roads lead to rome, and/or the only viable combat option at my disposal is 'I hit it with a metal stick', over and over and over.)