Trouble keeping a sandboxy campaign going

[Science Paladin]

So... Recently I've been losing some of my DM mojo.

I'm currently running a campaign with a group that likes to improvise and generally comes up with wonderful activities and plans on their own. The current campaign was going to be a general "rise of dark god, fight his church, learn how to remove his power, kill him in final showdown", however the party grew attached to the first town, got a shop there and settled... This was fine, and the campaign began revolving around them making resistance in the town, dealing with Inquisitors and the such that come after them.

Now, however, things are running low on steam. They're running out of things to do, and it's hard to keep finding them objectives to keep them going. And they're not making much progress on taking down the god, simply annoying his church in one town...But i know they need to eventually stop the god (or TPK trying) or it just won't be a satisfying ending. By now I'm also having to keep track of too much (town NPCs, the wider progress of the dark god, companions, their home, etc.) so my time is getting bogged down in making sure the world works fluidly. They like the way the world manages realistically around them though.

I don't want to force them out the town, but I'm having trouble finding ways to put some energy back into things. They're currently on a side quest expedition out of town, that's going kinda meh level, as that's how they respond to too railroady quests, which gives me a chance to think about how to proceed with the town stuff.

Got any advice?

[SomeNerd]

Hmm... okay, well, there are a few options. The players want to stay based in the starting town, and you want them to defeat the dark god. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive goals. Let's lay out a flow chart of options here.

1. Get players to leave town
---a. Push or force them out
---b. Lure them out
2. Adjust campaign so players can stay in town
---a. Bring action to them
---b. Allow them to act at a distance

Under 1a, you have the standards. You could burn down the town, have them driven out, or otherwise force them to leave. Might come across as a bit railroad-y. You also have more unique options; let one of the players get married, and then their spouse comes down with a rare illness that requires a foreign herb to treat, a creeping evil makes the land uninhabitable (without killing off the townsfolk), etc. If you want to keep the same NPCs, force the entire town into a nomadic lifestyle. Basically, think of a reason why they wouldn't want to stay.

1b sort of overlaps; 1a is the stick, 1b is the carrot. You said they set up a shop, maybe they need to leave to negotiate a trading deal or secure a rare resource. This has a lot of overlap with 1a; the best way of getting them out of town is both carrot and stick. As opposed to 1a, think of a reason why the would want to leave.

Now, category 2 is the interesting options...

2a is fairly obvious; maybe a traveling paladin on death's door manages to bring a rare artifact to the town, with the hosts of hell hot on his heels. Maybe the Dread Lord's army is coming through and the town needs to be fortified, etc.

2b... well, the obvious solution here? Mercenary/adventurer's guild, led by the players. Instead of going out themselves (usually), let them hire on and train other adventurers. Maybe occasionally one gets into trouble and calls for help.


Personally, I'd go with category two; probably start with getting one of the PCs an apprentice, which stirs up interest. Meanwhile, the forces of darkness are beginning to sniff around the area, in search of <insert macguffin here>, requiring the PCs to upgrade the town in order to defend it; maybe search up some supplements about fortified battles, sieges, and artifice. Hell, let them upgrade the town into an airship town and travel above the land, searching out ways to upgrade it further to defend against the forces of evil. If you want to, make the final battle the entire town/airship versus the dark god.

That's where I'd go with it, anyway. Either way, I hope something in here helps.

[Lo'Tek]

By now I'm also having to keep track of too much (town NPCs, the wider progress of the dark god, companions, their home, etc.)
Step 1: Let the players do the work. Don't manage their home or companions. They are building a resistance? Dont manage the resistance: They manage the resistance.

Step 2: Get them invested
So they are already in conflict with this evil cult?
Use the stick: Kill someone, set fire to something, make it clear that whoever stands against the church will suffer -> Escalation of violence. Either they deal with it or the cult will deal with them.
Use the carrot: Adventurers tend to go on adventures because there is something to get. A hook should not be "it is there", it should be "it is there and you might be interested in it because". This is especially true in sandboxes, because most of the time a lot of stuff is just there and not investigating is as valid an option as any other. In some cases it even is the best option.

Step 3a: Be ready to abandon the plot.
If they don't take the carrot and the small stick did not work you are left with the big stick.. or thinking about a new plot. The dark god is still there. So what? The other gods will make sure the sky does not darken and meteors kill all their followers. "Managing the progress of the dark god"? If the protagonists do not follow the plot, why is the plot even progressing? Special candles are needed for a powerful magic ritual and the courier with the candles arrives not earlier then the day the heroes decide to care about the ritual. Fate does not allow it otherwise. Yes a living world is changing on its own, but these changes are not the main plot, they are simply small changes of the environment to make it feel more alive. The main plot is about the heroes, not the villain.

Step 3b: Stop providing other plots
Sure it is a bit railroady but at some point they either come up with their own activities (again) or take the quest.
I once arrived at a monestary and asked around for quests. The monks gave me one and i passed. They gave me another and i passed again. After i did not accept the third, they wished me farewell.

[Yora]

If the mountain does not come to the prophet, then the prophet has to come to the mountain.

So they already faught the dark god's minions in their town and pretty much defeated them? I'd say in this case the leaders of the cult get annoyed and will deal with these troublemakers personally. They could be setting up a new headquarter right next to the party's town or prepare to lay siege to it. That way the players can fight the cult leaders without having to leave their town.

[Shackel]

Ooh, consider having people fleeing the destruction of the dark god's cult coming to the town, followed in hot pursuit by said cult: thus, the story becomes one about this once small town becoming the last holy bastion of the free world against the dark god's forces. It has both the consequences for refusing to help the rest of the world(see: said world being ground to dust while their inhabitants search for anywhere safe to go) and the ability to fight the dark god while remaining settled down.

Not intended, but there's also a little bit of karma in how all they cared for in the world was that one town... and now that's all that's left.

[Florian]

Got any advice?

Rest that party for a while. Have them create fresh characters for the next town or country, go back in time a bit and play a parallel story with them. That´ll give all of you some new insight into the story and how it´ll develop.

[RazorChain]

When they are out of town the Dark Gods agents burn the place down and crucify all townsfolk they take alive on the road that leads to the town as an example to others that resist them.



If that doesn't spur them into action then I don't know what will.

[Yora]

The only action I see here is to end the campaign. Taking everything away that the players have and leaving them with nothing makes it rather pointless for the players to keep playing.

[hymer]

How about letting them win in this town? They find the hidden place or the one leading the cult or whatever, storm the location and kill everyone. Town saved! Medals! Speeches! A grand feast! They marry the mayor's child!
And then they'll have to look elsewhere, without feeling they've been forced out.

[Science Paladin]

Okay, there's some​ really good advice here.

My current plans based on this will be an escalation of violence and such in the town, have them confront things... With the possibility of freeing the town in the end. From there they'll get the possibility of sending other adventurers out and such for them, allowing action at a distance, and once they have a free town more dramatic things may come their way...

The idea of having the town end up a last stand of freedom in the country as they let the rest of it slide into darkness sounds exactly like what I'm looking for; brings in the action, keeps things fresh, and gives clear routes for how they can deal with the god (who they do want to kill.. they hate him nicely already).

Thank you so much for your advice guys! It's only my second campaign as DM, so I'm getting used to it, but still get stumped sometimes.

[Darth Ultron]

This is one of the big problems with sandbox games and a big reason why they often fail: they rely too much on the players. It's a bit of a ''burden'' to keep the game going, even more so if the DM is just doing the ''I just react to the players and walk on eggshells so they don't think I'm railroading''. Now, sure, some, like maybe 1%, of players do this great....but the rest, not so much. It is fun, for a couple minutes ''being in control of the game'' and being a ''player tyrant''....but after the couple minutes, most players just want to play the game. They don't want to run the game and do all the work...they just want to play a character.

Your game is a perfect example...there is a plot. The player tyrants say ''no, we want to do our own thing''. So you say ''ok, do it''. And the game rolls on for a bit as the players ''do'' whatever it is that they wanted to do. But then they do it. And then what? They did the thing...and it is over. So what happens next?

[Yora]

Railroading is the negation of choices. Not forcing the players to make a choice. Forcing the players to make choices is the whole reason why we still have GMs today. Making dungeon maps and controling the monsters can be done by a computer. Giving the players something to react to and that reacts to their actions is exactly what a GM is for. Simply presenting a sandbox that only reacts to players' action will automatically lead to the players completing it. At some point they have established the state they they aimed for. To keep the game going the world needs to change so that the players once again have to act to make it the way they want.
Or you chose to not keep the game going and move on to a new one.

[thirdkingdom]

I run pretty sandboxy games, and most of the hooks that develop through play are the result of random encounters. I don't know what edition you're playing, but I would take a look at some editions (such as B/X, 1e, etc.) that utilize random encounters. Some encounters will just be one-offs, but others can be extended and woven into the game.

As an example, I ran a game a few years back where the adventurers were camping in the wilderness and the night-time random encounter check was positive, for a single elf. I thought to myself "why is there a lone elf, in the middle of the night, in dangerous terrain." A few rolls later I determined that the elf's village, some days away, was under attack by a mysterious force and he had been sent to find help. The players took the hook and rescuing the elven village ended up being a good chunk of the next few months.

[Pugwampy]

Most campaigns dont have an ending . If your players are happy with their current situation why not go with the flow . Thats the point of a sandbox . I suppose you could literally have npc,s tell em that there is no more "good" paying work for them although they could dig a ditch for a few silver . You could also have a poster that advertises a great paying job in the next town .
Perhaps players will think of something else to do on their own .

They might not appreciate being forced teleported to the otherside of the world but thats an option too .

[Nupo]

Ooh, consider having people fleeing the destruction of the dark god's cult coming to the town, followed in hot pursuit by said cult:
Throw some members of the cult in with the refugees as infiltrators. They can cause all kinds of trouble once they're on the inside. You could also have some of the original town residents be cult sympathizers and spies.

[Darth Ultron]

I run pretty sandboxy games...

As an example, I ran a game a few years back where the adventurers were camping in the wilderness and the night-time random encounter check was positive, for a single elf. I thought to myself "why is there a lone elf, in the middle of the night, in dangerous terrain." A few rolls later I determined that the elf's village, some days away, was under attack by a mysterious force and he had been sent to find help. The players took the hook and rescuing the elven village ended up being a good chunk of the next few months.

Odd that your ''sandboxy game'' looks a lot more like a ''normal railroad game'', but I guess if you say it is a sandbox, right?

After all other then the random rolls, how is the game any different then a normal railroad game? Is it just as the players ''agree' to save the elven village? and if they wanted to be jerks are say a couple weeks and be like ''we drop this and go north'' you'd toss aside all the work you did and just be like ''ok, you are the best players in the world."

[thirdkingdom]

Odd that your ''sandboxy game'' looks a lot more like a ''normal railroad game'', but I guess if you say it is a sandbox, right?

After all other then the random rolls, how is the game any different then a normal railroad game? Is it just as the players ''agree' to save the elven village? and if they wanted to be jerks are say a couple weeks and be like ''we drop this and go north'' you'd toss aside all the work you did and just be like ''ok, you are the best players in the world."


Dude, it's already been well established on these forums that your definitions of "railroad" and "sandbox" are not accepted by literally anyone else posting here, and that every time the discussion comes up you feel the need to derail the thread with arguments from your point of view. Your post adds nothing to the discussion at hand raised by the OP, nor is it correct. But I have learned that there is literally no argument, no matter how cogently coached or factually correct, that will sway you from your opinion.

[Darth Ultron]

Dude, it's already been well established on these forums that your definitions of "railroad" and "sandbox" are not accepted by literally anyone else posting here, and that every time the discussion comes up you feel the need to derail the thread with arguments from your point of view. Your post adds nothing to the discussion at hand raised by the OP, nor is it correct. But I have learned that there is literally no argument, no matter how cogently coached or factually correct, that will sway you from your opinion.

Ok?

I'm just trying to understand how you railroad your players and not call it railroading...and get away with it...so I can do it.

Just take your example: it is exactly like a normal non sandboxy game I have done: the characters must save a town. Now you don't give any details, but did say it took months.....and I'm assuming months of game play and not ''we only game twice a year'' or something. So for such a long game it must be complex and have details, very un-sandboxy like. You can't just 'pop' stuff in, you need to make it up before hand...like a normal non-sandboxy game.

So I'm just wondering how you do it?

[Beans]

Okay, there's some​ really good advice here.

My current plans based on this will be an escalation of violence and such in the town, have them confront things... With the possibility of freeing the town in the end. From there they'll get the possibility of sending other adventurers out and such for them, allowing action at a distance, and once they have a free town more dramatic things may come their way...

The idea of having the town end up a last stand of freedom in the country as they let the rest of it slide into darkness sounds exactly like what I'm looking for; brings in the action, keeps things fresh, and gives clear routes for how they can deal with the god (who they do want to kill.. they hate him nicely already).

Thank you so much for your advice guys! It's only my second campaign as DM, so I'm getting used to it, but still get stumped sometimes.

It's great that people's advice helped you! Hopefully you and your players keep having fun, and you're sure to keep learning and getting even better. This is a great subject to keep on, and hopefully one that will prevent the thread's complete transformation into another painful episode of The Darth Ultron Show.
Keep us updated! :smallsmile:

[thirdkingdom]

Ok?

I'm just trying to understand how you railroad your players and not call it railroading...and get away with it...so I can do it.

Just take your example: it is exactly like a normal non sandboxy game I have done: the characters must save a town. Now you don't give any details, but did say it took months.....and I'm assuming months of game play and not ''we only game twice a year'' or something. So for such a long game it must be complex and have details, very un-sandboxy like. You can't just 'pop' stuff in, you need to make it up before hand...like a normal non-sandboxy game.

So I'm just wondering how you do it?

I run games online, via pbp. And this is the problem I have with engaging you: I'm never sure if you're deliberately trolling or if you seriously don't get it. Could you please point out in my OP where I said the adventurers had to save the town? They were free to do as they desired; it just so happened that was the plot hook they chose to follow out of many. I am also, as I have stated before, fine with my players deciding they don't want to follow *any* of the hooks I present and doing whatever they want.

[Darth Ultron]

I run games online, via pbp. And this is the problem I have with engaging you: I'm never sure if you're deliberately trolling or if you seriously don't get it. Could you please point out in my OP where I said the adventurers had to save the town? They were free to do as they desired; it just so happened that was the plot hook they chose to follow out of many. I am also, as I have stated before, fine with my players deciding they don't want to follow *any* of the hooks I present and doing whatever they want.

That is it?

That is your definition of sandbox?

Just that your willing to toss away any and all work you have done on a player whim?

[thirdkingdom]

It's great that people's advice helped you! Hopefully you and your players keep having fun, and you're sure to keep learning and getting even better. This is a great subject to keep on, and hopefully one that will prevent the thread's complete transformation into another painful episode of The Darth Ultron Show.
Keep us updated! :smallsmile:

I hate the fact that it is literally impossible to have a conversation about sandboxing on this forum without Darth Ultron threadcrapping all over it.

[thamolas]

Throw a curveball from left field.

Maybe introduce a new villain that noticed the group and sets up a plan to kidnap them. Make sure the villain isn't similar to the dark god's cult.

Or maybe bring back a seemingly minor (but memorable) NPC from a different time and place who tracked down the party to ask for their help.

Or maybe have the cult try to recruit the party and make a truly delicious offer and see how the party responds -- maybe even have the cultists help them out of a tough spot first, to make the offer more tempting.

Or maybe introduce someone else's response to the evil cult that's just as bad (and get the party tangled up in it).

Or maybe make the cult unwitting pawns for a more despicable evil that the party discovers clues of and see how they respond.

...or any number of other options!

[Honest Tiefling]

Someone has noticed their efforts to protect the town they love. A goodly creature, let's say a unicorn, brings them a child. They have no idea what this child is, but there are hints she is either sought after by the BBEG, or somehow important to their plans.

For whatever reason, the forces of good can neither age nor raise the child. One reason could be that artificially raising someone and taking away their childhood and development doesn't go so well if you want someone who is a stable human being. Her normal guardian might have been killed, hence why the party now has her.

What's the best place to hide this child? A tiny little village, being protected for sentimental reasons, that is far from the major areas of conflict...And among the children of the village.

Normally, children macguffins can be annoying, but I assume the town already has children of some sort or another, so adding one more isn't an issue. It acknowledges what the PCs have done, and gives them a reason to stay put. Sure, there's the implication that the forces of good are doing things elsewhere, but I assume that is already happening or not a problem.

Plot threads are:
1) Who gets to raise the child? The elderly priest, the wise woman herbalist, or the town mayor? How do you convince them to raise the child as their own?
2) What is the child doing? Perhaps their control over their powers is not perfect, and bad things happen on accident. Better fix them quickly, before someone notices!
3) What happens when the village falls? Make a back up plan, and perhaps ally with nearby settlements to ensure a place to run to.
4) Who is looking for the child? Do they have to worry about spies and desperate people willing to give over a child to save their entire family? Will people be punished if they continue to hide the child? Is the town risking itself to save this child? Does the party have to uncover and quickly kill spies?
5) Fortify the town. I assume you were doing this before, but throw in more ways to help or hinder with this. Such as if there are food rations to make sure there is a surplus in case of siege. Does the party convince people to work long hours to harvest for their neighbors and those in the militia? Does the party rally the town? Does the party try to make contact with some friendly dwarves for better walls? What about training the militia?

[RazorChain]

The only action I see here is to end the campaign. Taking everything away that the players have and leaving them with nothing makes it rather pointless for the players to keep playing.


Not really, It's often a theme in various systems and games. Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun it happened a lot that when we had riled up some megacorporation they went after us and destroyed everthing we loved and even our reputations. Also in Vampire the Masquerade you often ended up playing a 13th gen. vampire trying to work your way up the food chain in the city politics, if you weren't careful enough then you would make enemies that were way more powerful than you, when they gun for you then most of what you've built up gets destroyed.


You now what they say: Hell hath no fury like a player scorned!

Players will usually escalate things enormously. Somebody steals something precious from them and they will burn down the town to find it.

A megacorp destroys their base....then they will fly an AV with a tactical nuclear device into the corporate HQ and detonate (happended in one cyberpunk game).

Some thugs held down one PC and chopped off a finger when he didn't want to pay protection racket for his newly aquired inn. The group killed the crime boss and burned his house down.

[Florian]

Dude, it's already been well established on these forums that your definitions of "railroad" and "sandbox" are not accepted by literally anyone else posting here, and that every time the discussion comes up you feel the need to derail the thread with arguments from your point of view. Your post adds nothing to the discussion at hand raised by the OP, nor is it correct. But I have learned that there is literally no argument, no matter how cogently coached or factually correct, that will sway you from your opinion.

Tho I consider his standpoint to be extreme, he´s hitting the nail on the head with the question. Notice how often it is the gm of a "sandbox" that asks for help if the story development is stuck? There _is_ something wrong with that in a type of game, that puts player agency front, center and middle.

[thirdkingdom]

Tho I consider his standpoint to be extreme, he´s hitting the nail on the head with the question. Notice how often it is the gm of a "sandbox" that asks for help if the story development is stuck? There _is_ something wrong with that in a type of game, that puts player agency front, center and middle.

I disagree with your statement that there is "something wrong" with that type of game, and also take issue with the your implication that you see more people looking for help regarding sandbox style games than scripted adventures*. I see plenty of people posting here asking for advice running module-style adventures. And even *if* there were a demonstrable difference, I would argue that the difference is likely do to the fact that the average poster here is less likely to be familiar with a sandbox style of play. Ask the same question on other forum -- say, Dragonsfoot, or ODD74 -- and I daresay you will find many more people comfortable with running sandbox style games.


*I have seen DU argue far too long in bad faith regarding "railroading" and "sandbox" to try to engage him in discussion on the issue. Needless to say, "railroad" and "sandbox" are not polar opposites on the same axis, and it is naive at best and disingenuous at worst to suggest otherwise, or that people who do run sandbox games are "doing it wrong", as you do in your post.

[War_lord]

Yes, many Sandbox campaigns fall apart because most players have trouble with concepts like character motivations. But many Module driven campaigns fall apart when the DM is unwilling or unable to preserve any sense of player agency. That's why it's best, in my view to adopt a hybrid system.

[Florian]

@thirdkingdom:

Think again. I was saying that it´s a bad sign when a "gm" posts question about a sandbox, instead of a "player" asking about ideas on what they can do.

[Piedmon_Sama]

If I were in your position I would just not start the next session.

Like, it can pay to be a little theatrical sometimes. So next time your friends sit down around the table and go through the usual "how's your Mother?" stuff, just set up your screen and dice as normal, then recline, put your heels on the table (or don't if it's not yours), whatever; have some tea on hand and sip it if that'll help. Just let them chatter for the first half hour and then, finally, when they realize they should have started ten minutes ago be leafing through your books going "oh, I'm sorry, what? You wanted something from me?" when they go "yes" be like "well, what are you doing?"

I've never had the strength of will to hold out for the full half hour but I bet if somebody did this it'd be awesome, it could be you!

[Darth Ultron]

*I have seen DU argue far too long in bad faith regarding "railroading" and "sandbox" to try to engage him in discussion on the issue. Needless to say, "railroad" and "sandbox" are not polar opposites on the same axis, and it is naive at best and disingenuous at worst to suggest otherwise, or that people who do run sandbox games are "doing it wrong", as you do in your post.

I would not exactly say there is something ''wrong'' with a sandbox game. If you have amazing, engaging players that are just full of life and creativity and wonder with a laid back more dull DM that just wants to ''react'' to the amazing players and over all no one wants any kind of plot or story or even vaguely organized anything (except that ''after kind'' were sure you can sort of put all the random stuff together and say ''it is a story''.) then sure you can have a great game. But only in that very specific mind set of people all agreeing together before hand.

[Jarawara]

If I were in your position I would just not start the next session.

Like, it can pay to be a little theatrical sometimes. So next time your friends sit down around the table and go through the usual "how's your Mother?" stuff, just set up your screen and dice as normal, then recline, put your heels on the table (or don't if it's not yours), whatever; have some tea on hand and sip it if that'll help. Just let them chatter for the first half hour and then, finally, when they realize they should have started ten minutes ago be leafing through your books going "oh, I'm sorry, what? You wanted something from me?" when they go "yes" be like "well, what are you doing?"

I've never had the strength of will to hold out for the full half hour but I bet if somebody did this it'd be awesome, it could be you!

I've heard of someone doing this, two people in two different situations in fact. It was awesome. In each of the DM's minds. To the rest at the table, it was an epic fail, and in the second case, a clear case of DM malfeasance that probably cost the gaming world a new prospect, as the kid never returned to the game.

I always advise people, no matter how much you want to be a ****, no matter how much they deserve you being a ****.... don't be a ****.


Edit, to put it in softer terms (and so I can attempt to follow my own advice)... People come to see their friends, to socialize. Let them have their time. The DM does not need to push to start the gamesession, especially in a sandbox, if the players are acting like, well, friends often do. If you have a goal in mind, and you know you have just enough time to complete that goal if you get started right away, then sure, herd some cats and crack some whips. But what's a DM's 'goal' doing in a sandbox game?

If they really need a hint, simply ask them what they want to do. If they don't want to do anything... that's ok. Don't do anything. But don't be a **** about it. Ask them how their Mother is doing.

[Winter_Wolf]

Rest that party for a while. Have them create fresh characters for the next town or country, go back in time a bit and play a parallel story with them. That´ll give all of you some new insight into the story and how it´ll develop.

I was going to say something about escalation, but I like Florian's idea better. Let the players see the problem from another angle for a while. Maybe the new characters actually end up saving the world while the original party was holed up in a town somewhere.

Maybe the second party meets a terrible TPK but a messege gets back to the original party and the proverbial neon sign lights up saying "the world is going to hell everywhere else, pull your heads out of the sand and get a little proactive."

Let's face it, the group sounds like it's stalled, and needs a bit of a nudge or a push in pretty much any direction. If it was a car, you'd either back up and step a little harder on the accelerator or you'd have someone get out and push.

[Psyren]

They're up against a dark god. Have it flatten the town they've grown attached to. This immediately gives them a revenge motive and a reason to leave, all in one.

Even better, have its right hand/Dragon do it. Something tangible they can fight and save as many people as they can. Then, even if they fail to save the town they've still accomplished something, and through that entity's death, you can incorporate the plothook needed to defeat the Big Bad itself.

[Cluedrew]

This is one of the big problems with sandbox games and a big reason why they often fail: they rely too much on the players.Isn't that like saying that a railroad* game is overly dependent on the GM?

Personally, I have found that the quality of a game increases (on average, over a limited sample) as the line between the GM and the other players gets fuzzier. The players have fun because they get more input into the game (and despite some concerns, the fact that it has to go through the other players and the GM means that it does not mean free reign) and the GM gets to have more fun because it takes some of the work away from them.

Which brings me to my suggestion: Ask the players. Maybe at a slightly abstract level if you want to keep it a surprise, but ask them from what they think would breath some life into the game.

* Using what I think Darth Ultron means by railroad because the question was directed at him.

[ArcanaGuy]

... not to overstate the obvious, but have you tried talking to them about it instead of trying to subtly or not so subtly guide them?

[Psikerlord]

In my experience the players decide the main plot of a sandbox game. You can throw the dark god around, but if they're more interested in their little patch around the town, then that becomes the main plot. Maybe they'll bite at the background story in a few more levels, maybe they wont. And if they don't, have the dark god bit play out in the background, and move on to what they're interested in.

Just keep throwing little hooks out (of different kinds, inc the dark god), and play to find out what happens. You might be pleasantly surprised! Maybe they'll join forces with the dark god. Who knows.

[Darth Ultron]

Isn't that like saying that a railroad* game is overly dependent on the GM?


A little, but not exactly. After all a good DM just wants to make a good impartial game. A good player might be ''impartial'', maybe, but they are more likely to be many other things...often selfish things.



Personally, I have found that the quality of a game increases (on average, over a limited sample) as the line between the GM and the other players gets fuzzier.

I find the quality of the game increases when the players play the game and the DM runs the game. The game is much better when the players just keep playing and are not stopping the game every couple of minutes to complain, demand changes, take control of things and second guess and attack the DM.

[Cluedrew]

A little, but not exactly. After all a good DM just wants to make a good impartial game. A good player might be ''impartial'', maybe, but they are more likely to be many other things...often selfish things.I will not disagree that a player can but having known a lot of GMs to go on power trips, I am going to have to see numbers for "more likely". (Bad railroading, overbearing DMPCs and so on.)


I find the quality of the game increases when the players play the game and the DM runs the game. The game is much better when the players just keep playing and are not stopping the game every couple of minutes to complain, demand changes, take control of things and second guess and attack the DM.You would do well to accept that a player can have a lot more constructive input than complaints. Not that complaints can't be constructive, they can be real issues as well.

More to the point, in my group when we have done it that isn't what it looks like. We don't "stop the game" it is just part of the game. A simple example is the time one of the PCs produced directions to some ruins that the GM never said existed. The party was in search of ruins so instead of asking the GM about ruins in his character he just created the ruins himself. He asked the GM if it fit, but so far the GM has never said no. Works way better than, ask the GM, have the GM give out information, have that information be relayed in character. We skip straight to step 3 and more people have the opportunities to add ideas.

[ArcanaGuy]

How do you get the players to move around in a sandbox game?

Well, let's look at a more linear vs. open-ended game. The "Railroad" versus "Sandbox" model. Now, obviously, this can mix together in a certain way, but as an artificial dichotomy: in a railroad game, you have a pretty linear plot of event to event to event to event, and the players only pick up the narrative and control when you reach the next scripted event. In a sandbox game, you have story hooks all over the map, and they can arrive at them in any order.

Now, with a railroad, it becomes fairly easy to deliver the plot, because ... the story doesn't continue until the next 'station' on the railroad. You don't really need to prompt the players too much, because it's understood that they're following the story.

It becomes a lot harder with a sandbox game. You need to provide a reason to get out and about. Something to lure them to the plot hooks. People often think of sandbox games as being a game without a vehicle, but that's not true. It just is a player-driven vehicle instead of a vehicle they just ride on. A car instead of a train, so to speak.

You have a plot: The dark god. But what's the vehicle to get them from place to place? What's the hooks that draw them out?

A vehicle can be something like: An uncle who died and left them his estate, and in his estate they find clues that the dark god is rising, and the steps they can take to stop it. Or a mysterious stranger who keeps leaving them hints as to dark doings that only they can stop. Or a series of 13 lost treasures, and they have the compass that points at where they're hidden.

The hooks are often something more personal. Something each character specifically wants.

And finally - if they're holed up in a small town running a tavern ... just let the adventures dry up. They've finished off all the baddies in this area. Their xp isn't rising, and the local trade is drying up because the cult has been driving business in the surrounding area into the ground. The economy is crashing. The fields are drying up. Famine, plague, and misfortune - all parts of the prophecy of the coming of the ancient evil.

But if they just help out their economic partners in the nearby towns, they can build up an even BIGGER economic empire... take their one shop and turn it into a merchant house... the key is to theme your hooks after what they show you that they want. They want a shop? Give them challenges to defeat in order to make the shop successful again. Don't take AWAY their shop. Let the shop be their motivation. And each time they succeed at another question, give them something tangible that makes the shop better.

But I still recommend just talking with your players and finding out what they're looking for in the game and why they're not interested in the plot.

[LibraryOgre]

One thing I do with sandboxy games is establish the "ideal timeline"... what is going to happen if none of those pesky adventurers stick their heads in and disrupt it. Thus, when the party decides to hare off and do their own thing, I know what's going on with the main plot.

For example, I ran a game where hobgoblins took over Neverwinter Woods. They drove out the elves, captured a few towns relatively bloodlessly, and settled down to be properly LE folks, including offering some sweet trade deals to Neverwinter and the Sword Coast, making them a bit less willing to help the elves recapture Neverwinter Woods. The party engaged with this for a while and then... left. "We're not going to be able to solve this, so we're going to Waterdeep." Months later and some unrelated adventuring, and suddenly the hobgoblins are a major force, even sending aid when Waterdeep is demolished by natural disaster.

How did this happen? I had my list of what was going to happen if the party didn't intervene... and then they didn't, so the story continued without them. In another game, I had tons of story hooks... Hobgoblins who had taken over an abandoned Dale (organized hobgoblins are kind of a thing for me, I admit), elves returning to Myth Drannor in an attempt to recapture it (and reinstate Cormanthyr), dissident drow coming up from the Underdark and trying to build a homeland on the surface (and acquiring a rare form of elven lycanthropy), and a few other things I've since forgotten about. When the party focused on A, B and C continued apace. Interrupt B, and A and C keep moving forward (though, since they'd started on A, A's course was now different than it had been at the first).

The key to a sandbox is that things keep moving without the players. Sandboxy CRPGs tend to be static until the players show up, and return to stasis if the player's don't pay attention to them. For TTRPGs, things should keep moving.

[Psyren]

In my experience the players decide the main plot of a sandbox game. You can throw the dark god around, but if they're more interested in their little patch around the town, then that becomes the main plot. Maybe they'll bite at the background story in a few more levels, maybe they wont. And if they don't, have the dark god bit play out in the background, and move on to what they're interested in.

Just keep throwing little hooks out (of different kinds, inc the dark god), and play to find out what happens. You might be pleasantly surprised! Maybe they'll join forces with the dark god. Who knows.

This is okay to an extent, but if I agreed to run an epic struggle of good vs. evil and my players would end up rather playing Farmville, then I'd be pretty disappointed and burnout would swiftly follow.



The key to a sandbox is that things keep moving without the players. Sandboxy CRPGs tend to be static until the players show up, and return to stasis if the player's don't pay attention to them. For TTRPGs, things should keep moving.

I'd say this depends on the sandbox. If you drag your feet in Morrowind and Ultima 7, the world progressively deteriorates and the main quest becomes harder, with various quests, NPCs and upgrades becoming Lost Forever. But do the same in Dragon Age Inquisition or Zelda Breath of the Wild, and the Big Bad will put his plans on hold indefinitely while you hunt pigs and chat up the locals. Whichever approach you go with, I think the best thing to do is to let your players know what kind of sandbox they're playing in up front, or at least hint that maybe they'll want to look into what the bad guy is doing.

[War_lord]

I'm not sure that's true in Morrowind. I know that originally, back when the game was first planned and was going to encompass the whole of Morrowind, there was plans to have the big bad of the game slowly take over the world, but that got axed due to the inherent difficultly of implementing large scale changes in an open world game.

Anyway, sounds like there might have been a miscommunication between players and DM about exactly what kind of Sandbox the game was.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure that's true in Morrowind. I know that originally, back when the game was first planned and was going to encompass the whole of Morrowind, there was plans to have the big bad of the game slowly take over the world, but that got axed due to the inherent difficultly of implementing large scale changes in an open world game.

It never gets to the point that the game is impossible to complete, but the world does react to you doing nothing for extended periods of time as a way to add a sense of urgency. There is nothing wrong with that, is all I'm saying.

[Florian]

It never gets to the point that the game is impossible to complete, but the world does react to you doing nothing for extended periods of time as a way to add a sense of urgency. There is nothing wrong with that, is all I'm saying.

You know, that´s the kind of "mixed mode" that gets identified as "sandbox" nowadays.

[Segev]

I apologize, as I've only skimmed the thread, but I want to answer the OP's question thusly anyway:

Have the evil cult obviously getting more powerful. It doesn't even have to be by sending more and more powerful things to the party's town...just more of the low-powered ones. They've beaten back Inquisitors? That's heresy. Surely some diplomatic pressure is coming from nobility to buckle and kowtow, maybe turn over the worst heretic(s) to the church. Now they have enemies that aren't just this cult, but those influenced by it.

They need to deal with the threat from whoever rules the land they're in. Are they a sovereign power already? Then their neighboring nations are becoming more and more belligerent. Trade is harder, making life harder for their people.

Are they successfully running the only town that isn't in the sway of the cult? Then refugees who believe in things unwelcome in the cult's territory seek them out. This swells the town...but unless they build their town system well enough to let refugees start working and contributing, they'll have massive ghettos and poverty. And not every refugee is desirable in his own right. And even that's ignoring deliberate infiltrators and agents provocateur that the villains might send in with them.

Give them a focal enemy exterior to the town. A kingdom, a city-state, something where the cult is particularly strong. They need to grow their town's resources to deal with this threat and what it brings to bear, and then they may need to go conquer it or drive the cult out of there. Or not, as long as they can bring the political pressure to the fore to keep their neighbors "friendly."

Essentially, if they're playing small town sandbox, have the authorities over the town be problematic, with greater resources due to being larger-scope. Force them to increase their scope to deal with it. Or to go questing to deal with it, if they prefer; they could always quest to take out the top of the problem, rather than macroing up their economy to overwhelm the problem. Let them choose how they address it, but that's the style of problem they've chosen to have, so give it to them!

[thirdkingdom]

One thing I do with sandboxy games is establish the "ideal timeline"... what is going to happen if none of those pesky adventurers stick their heads in and disrupt it. Thus, when the party decides to hare off and do their own thing, I know what's going on with the main plot.

For example, I ran a game where hobgoblins took over Neverwinter Woods. They drove out the elves, captured a few towns relatively bloodlessly, and settled down to be properly LE folks, including offering some sweet trade deals to Neverwinter and the Sword Coast, making them a bit less willing to help the elves recapture Neverwinter Woods. The party engaged with this for a while and then... left. "We're not going to be able to solve this, so we're going to Waterdeep." Months later and some unrelated adventuring, and suddenly the hobgoblins are a major force, even sending aid when Waterdeep is demolished by natural disaster.

How did this happen? I had my list of what was going to happen if the party didn't intervene... and then they didn't, so the story continued without them. In another game, I had tons of story hooks... Hobgoblins who had taken over an abandoned Dale (organized hobgoblins are kind of a thing for me, I admit), elves returning to Myth Drannor in an attempt to recapture it (and reinstate Cormanthyr), dissident drow coming up from the Underdark and trying to build a homeland on the surface (and acquiring a rare form of elven lycanthropy), and a few other things I've since forgotten about. When the party focused on A, B and C continued apace. Interrupt B, and A and C keep moving forward (though, since they'd started on A, A's course was now different than it had been at the first).

The key to a sandbox is that things keep moving without the players. Sandboxy CRPGs tend to be static until the players show up, and return to stasis if the player's don't pay attention to them. For TTRPGs, things should keep moving.


Yeah, I do this as well. About four months ago, game time, the PCs cleared out a remote bandit village nestled in the foothills of a mountain range, then promptly went off to do other things. Sure enough, nature abhors a vacuum, and they've recently received word that some unknown creatures, potentially *more* dangerous than the brigands, have moved in and may eventually disrupt a trade route more that the brigands ever did.

[Darth Ultron]

I will not disagree that a player can but having known a lot of GMs to go on power trips, I am going to have to see numbers for "more likely". (Bad railroading, overbearing DMPCs and so on.)

Um, feel free to ''see the numbers''.

And sure, some DM's power trip.



You would do well to accept that a player can have a lot more constructive input than complaints. Not that complaints can't be constructive, they can be real issues as well.

Maybe, but it is rare.



More to the point, in my group when we have done it that isn't what it looks like. We don't "stop the game" it is just part of the game. A simple example is the time one of the PCs produced directions to some ruins that the GM never said existed. The party was in search of ruins so instead of asking the GM about ruins in his character he just created the ruins himself. He asked the GM if it fit, but so far the GM has never said no. Works way better than, ask the GM, have the GM give out information, have that information be relayed in character. We skip straight to step 3 and more people have the opportunities to add ideas.

Well, your ''great example'' is just vague enough to not make any sense and be of no help to prove your point. Ok, so jerk player number two surprised a DM and pulled out something he made while side table DMing and arrogantly said ''Here Player-dm'' use this. And you think it was the greatest thing ever?




It becomes a lot harder with a sandbox game. You need to provide a reason to get out and about. Something to lure them to the plot hooks. People often think of sandbox games as being a game without a vehicle, but that's not true. It just is a player-driven vehicle instead of a vehicle they just ride on. A car instead of a train, so to speak.


Odd that it seems the answer of ''how to dig out of a sandbox that is going nowhere'' is to provide some railroad tracks for the characters to follow.....

[Cluedrew]

Are there any questions about the event that you would like to ask? To remove the vagueness of it. I remember a lot more details about the time than I wrote, I didn't think they were needed but if there are any other details that you think you need you can ask.

[thirdkingdom]

{{scrubbed}}

[Darth Ultron]

Are there any questions about the event that you would like to ask? To remove the vagueness of it. I remember a lot more details about the time than I wrote, I didn't think they were needed but if there are any other details that you think you need you can ask.

Well, your saying a player made something for the game and just gave it to the DM to use right? So the player suddenly just pulled something out and said ''use this, and I'll sort of pretend I don't know all about it as I made it''. Guess the player was hoping the DM would use the map so they could go to ''location 3'' that had the million gold coins and the DM would be all like ''well, nothing I can do it's written on the map''.

In any case I can see how this did not stop the game as the DM just filed the map away, so it's a good example of not stopping game play. But how is it a good example of a player side table DMing?

It's great, at some tables, where the players do the DM's job for them and are amazingly impartial too...if that is possible as they are playing a character. But I guess the question would be more like ''what if the DM was doing their job and had made up a map?'' Would the side DM player just be like ''ok'' or would they get all upset they had no ''agency'' to change the game?

So, yes, more details....

[Cluedrew]

More details then. There were 6 people at the game, but I think only the GM and 2 players where involved in this particular moment. P1 had created a wandering mystic who was searching for magic/spiritual enlightenment/it was weird but interesting. Anyways, was currently on Baffin Island (its the big island in northern Canada) in town and there was currently no reason for us to leave. So P2, who was playing a local hunter character pulls out some local knowledge about some nearby Viking ruins.

There was some debate about whether or not there were any actual Viking ruins on Baffin Island, we decided it fit well enough even if it probably wasn't historically accurate. During this debate the GM didn't officially approve it, but afterwards he just started going over directions on how to get to it.

And we went to the Viking ruins (almost got killed on the way back). They were thoroughly investigated, off screen we didn't find anything useful. Not that we were expecting to, it was just to keep the mystic happy (in-character) and drive the plot along.

And it did just that, a player introduced a story element and the GM ran with it. Actually I should also mention that the system uses a setting of "real life, but with X", there are some rules about what X is (it involves monsters) but the group decides some details. P2 did a lot of that this time and was the reason the story took place in Northern Canada. We don't divide along the line of the party and the rest of the world, or not very precisely.

[ArcanaGuy]

Odd that it seems the answer of ''how to dig out of a sandbox that is going nowhere'' is to provide some railroad tracks for the characters to follow.....

In what way does that quote translate to that meaning in your head?

[Segev]

In what way does that quote translate to that meaning in your head?

Darth Ultron's definition of "railroading" is "doing anything other than sitting on your hands and asking the players not only what they want to do, but what they want the outcome to be, and what NPCs they want to do what in response to it."

See, to Darth Ultron, if you have an NPC react to a PC in any fashion other than asking the player of that PC how they want him to react, you're railroading. And, therefore, in Darth Ultron's mind, it's no different than telling the players what plot their characters have to follow, with no allowance for deviation. Thus, all railroading is good DMing, to Darth Ultron.


At least, this is the best distillation of his posts on the subject I can put together. He's welcome to correct/dispute anything I may have misrepresented.

[Amphetryon]

In what way does that quote translate to that meaning in your head?

I have known multiple Players who considered any plot hooks laid out by the GM to be railroad tracks.

[Cluedrew]

I have known multiple Players who considered any plot hooks laid out by the GM to be railroad tracks.Someone shouting something really loud does not make it so. In my view laying out a hook is not a railroad, but forcing the players to bite is.

[Darth Ultron]

I have known multiple Players who considered any plot hooks laid out by the GM to be railroad tracks.

I've know many of the players like this.


Someone shouting something really loud does not make it so. In my view laying out a hook is not a railroad, but forcing the players to bite is.

Though this is the classic ''it's railroading if I don't like it''.

[Cluedrew]

I'm serious, I think that putting interesting elements into the story world is not railroading unless the GM also forces the players to go and interact with them. Without that, you are merely world-building by adding elements to the setting, which doesn't force the plot in any particular direction. Unless you count "You are clubbed over the head by the kings guards (no save) and dragged before the king to be given a mission before being poisoned with a slow acting poison. You get the antidote for completing the mission." as a plot hook, which it might qualify but I was talking about more there is a quest giver you can talk to, you hear rumours about strange things seen in the woods, that sort of thing.

[Amphetryon]

Someone shouting something really loud does not make it so. In my view laying out a hook is not a railroad, but forcing the players to bite is.

And when your view directly conflicts with that of your Players, do you dismiss their opinions as invalid, or seek mutually agreeable terms?

[Cluedrew]

Views on what? I mean I always try for the mutual beneficial compromise, but how often that happens and the form on compromise depends on the issue.

For instance, I am currently developing and testing my own system. So I almost never house-rule during the game because I need to see exactly how well the current rules preform. I will however listen to and maybe even use anything the players have to say after the game. Plot development on the other hand... well a couple of play tests ago I through out my prepared materials during character creation because the characters people wanted to play didn't fit my prepared adventure. So I am very flexible.

Or perhaps brittle, the new adventure was... we had fun despite of that adventure plan.

PS. Why do you capitalize the word players? This is not actually an important question but I'm just curious.

[Segev]

Though this is the classic ''it's railroading if I don't like it''.

I challenge you to re-read what he wrote, because he didn't actually state that he's okay with being forced to take the hook if he likes it. Nor did he say that he considers it bad if he chose to take the hook and turned out not to like it.

What he said was that laying out hooks is not railroading. Railroading is when the hook is laid out, and the GM doesn't allow the party to choose not to bite on it.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between somebody offering you a candy, versus somebody forcing it down your throat whether you want it or not?

[robnar]

Science Paladin:

Two thoughts:

One of my favorite authors, Lois McMaster Bujold, describes a technique she uses when she can't figure out how to get the plot moving - "What's the worst thing that could happen to the protagonist right now?" It's a good trick for thinking how to get stuff moving. For your campaign, it has the advantage that it's also easy to implement - any of the suggestions above, about burning down the village or whatever - are appropriate. It might provoke some resistance from your players if it (1) comes from completely out of the blue, and there's nothing they could have done to anticipate or prevent it, or (2) if it knocks them way out of the comfort zone they've established for the game.

Another technique, the one I prefer, is "What would the Dark God do?" In your campaign, you've god an animate and active enemy with an agenda. Determine how the Dark God's agenda directly conflicts with the player's agenda, and then set up the competition. Let the BBEG force the initiative and start putting the players on the defensive. I enjoy this technique, because I like poking the players out of their comfort zone, and it has the advantage if done well of being internally consistent. Once the players figure out what the BBEG is up to, they can force the initiative on him. The disadvantage of this technique is that from the player's point of view, it may appear like you're just messing with them for the sake of messing with them.

In my personal experience, sandbox type games require mature players with some initiative, shared understanding with the GM of the game world and how stuff works, and effective communication. From your OP, it sounds like you've definitely got (1) and (2).

[ArcanaGuy]

At least, this is the best distillation of his posts on the subject I can put together. He's welcome to correct/dispute anything I may have misrepresented.

Given that he didn't bother responding to me, I'm going to have to guess that you're right.

[Darth Ultron]

Do you honestly not understand the difference between somebody offering you a candy, versus somebody forcing it down your throat whether you want it or not?

I better example is: Fred is hungry and Joe offers a free lunch. Fred then finds out that is only a ham sandwich. Then Fred gets all mad and complains that Joe is trying to ''force railroad'' him into eating only the ham sandwich and thinks that Joe should have personality asked him what he wanted for lunch, before the lunch and then made whatever it was Fred wanted.

Now sure, in theory it would be great if you could alter reality and always get what you want....but that is not reality. The reality is that Joe had an extra ham sandwich, but does not have the ability to buy/make anything Fred wants....he just has the extra sandwich.


Given that he didn't bother responding to me, I'm going to have to guess that you're right.

Not like you left much to respond too. The way out of a sand trap in a sandbox is to lay down some railroad tracks for the players to follow out. Like say the players are all super snadboxy and full of arrogant agency and go into a town and pretend to drink at the tavern. And the DM just sits back and ''reacts'' by having the waitress bring more drinks. Exciting game...for some. Some players will get bored and be like ''it is boring just siting in the tavern'' and ask the DM to do something. So this is where the traveler will come into the tavern and tell the tale of the lich king and ask for help....and that is laying the tracks to follow the railroad out of the sand trap.

Now some say ''if the players are happy on a whim and they say it is not a railroad, then it is not'', but that is such an odd statement. If the adventure was presented, most would say it's a ''railroad adventure'', but if, on a whim, the players using the adventure like it, it's not a railroad? No one can explain that to me and just as the players on a whim like the adventure does not make it not a railroad.

[jayem]

...
The way out of a sand trap in a sandbox is to lay down some railroad tracks for the players to follow out. Like say the players are all super sandboxy and full of arrogant agency and go into a town and pretend to drink at the tavern. And the DM just sits back and ''reacts'' by having the waitress bring more drinks. Exciting game...for some. Some players will get bored and be like ''it is boring just siting in the tavern'' and ask the DM to do something. So this is where the traveler will come into the tavern and tell the tale of the lich king and ask for help....and that is laying the tracks to follow the railroad out of the sand trap.

Now some say ''if the players are happy on a whim and they say it is not a railroad, then it is not'', but that is such an odd statement. If the adventure was presented, most would say it's a ''railroad adventure'', but if, on a whim, the players using the adventure like it, it's not a railroad? No one can explain that to me and just as the players on a whim like the adventure does not make it not a railroad.

Because the players are (in theory) free to ignore him completely and have another drink (although of course now he's there it won't be the same), decide that the lich king will pay handsomely for the traveller, decide to go on a standard quest, speak to the local ruler and get his assistance and a myriad options.
And because they were free to go to the tavern without the DM calling it "arrogant agency", they can know that's true, even if in practice they give in to the whining NPC just as much as they would to the whining DM in a railroad


Though I do think we.do need a better split (though of course most games would vary slightly between them depending on the scene)

Railroading, the encounters etc are all effectively fixed, if the player tries to wander off the path they fail. Noteworthy when the expected odds of keeping on the path and leaving are about equal, less noteworthy if the PC's have being taken prisoner.

Motorwaying, is a bit more flexible there may be a few options (perhaps gong to B then A) and the choice of tiny detours and tea breaks. But you can't deviate too far, without running into traffic jams.

Tidaling, there is a pressure so the players can't hang around forever, but can flee the tide with 180 degrees of freedom, (unless they've let it get too close), and even build flood defences and the like or go swimming. There will be key areas the players will likely want to get to to change things, but even there there is flexibility. Additionally the players may modify the world by pointing out things that would surely be there, (but it's very limited, just saving the hassle of describing all the restaurants in a city centre and them making the choice, let them describe the restaurant they want to go to, and then see what the one most like it is).

Sandboxing, the players are under no pressure, the world is more or less fixed, and is a plaything to explore. Expect even more player creative agency (as it does no harm)

Godmoding, the players can create significant elements of the world.

[Cluedrew]

I better example is:Considering what we are talking about is my statement: No that example is not what I was talking about. A better example is that Fred says he is a vegetarian (because he is) and turns down Joe's sandwich. (Not railroading.) He then goes looking for something else to eat. Suddenly, the nearby shops don't have vegetarian options and the cooks all get in a huff when he asks them if they could take the meat out. (Railroading.)

Railroading (as I refer to it) happens not when the story world doesn't change to accommodate the players' ideas, but when it changes, or was initially set up, to thwart them.


Not like you left much to respond too.Segev's post, I think they where talking about Segev's post. Do you have anything to say about that one?


Like say the players are all super snadboxy and full of arrogant agency and go into a town and pretend to drink at the tavern. And the DM just sits back and ''reacts'' by having the waitress bring more drinks. Exciting game...for some. Some players will get bored and be like ''it is boring just siting in the tavern'' and ask the DM to do something. So this is where the traveler will come into the tavern and tell the tale of the lich king and ask for help....and that is laying the tracks to follow the railroad out of the sand trap.I have never seen a sandbox game that looks like that. Sandbox games usually involve a lot of setting exploration, as that is the sandbox. That would either be a character/role-play games, an empty room or both. Also the lich king is not (by the definition most people seem to use) railroading as it was not pre-planed, it was created in response to a request, further more they merely asked for help, if the players can say no or choose how they help, it is not forced either.


No one can explain that to me and just as the players on a whim like the adventure does not make it not a railroad.In part, the players' reactions do decide if it is railroading or not. If they go with the planed adventure because they want to than it isn't a railroad because no railroading occurred to force them to take it. I have explained it, call me no one. Of course it is about making you understand, than you're no one.

To jayem: You have a slightly different definition of railroading than me. I don't define it as an amount of linearity in the adventure per-say (although it is usually high) but rather the reaction to pushing past that linearity. Stone walling attempts to do so is what creates railroading.

[ArcanaGuy]

Not like you left much to respond too. The way out of a sand trap in a sandbox is to *snip*

Ok, so you put words down in response to me, but how does any of that have anything to do with what I originally wrote and you responded to? It honestly comes off as a random rant comletely unrelated to anything I wrote and utterly tangential to the topic of the thread.

[Amphetryon]

Views on what? I mean I always try for the mutual beneficial compromise, but how often that happens and the form on compromise depends on the issue.

PS. Why do you capitalize the word players? This is not actually an important question but I'm just curious.

As my response was directed at railroading, and mentioned it specifically, I'm flummoxed as to why you appear confused about the issue to which I was referring. If your Players consider plot elements introduced by the GM, and not the Players, to be railroad tracks, it doesn't matter if an internet forum disagrees on the definition. Nor is it helpful to explain that they're not using 'railroad' correctly.

To your PS, I generally make an effort to capitalize game terms, when I use them as such, to distinguish between game term use and general use. Sometimes I forget, or get thwarted by autocorrect or the smartphone, but that's the intent.

[jayem]

To jayem: You have a slightly different definition of railroading than me. I don't define it as an amount of linearity in the adventure per-say (although it is usually high) but rather the reaction to pushing past that linearity. Stone walling attempts to do so is what creates railroading.
I'd happily revise , especially as that seems like "...fixed, if the player tries to wander off the path they fail.".
It just seems there's various middle grounds that are being claimed, ignored as convenient, or forgotten about.

[Cluedrew]

To Amphetryon: Oh, you mean the threshold of railroading. Possibly the reason I missed that is I have never actually been accused of railroading, nor have I actually accused and of my GMs of railroading. Other issues have come up of course, actually the opposite problem, letting the players wander off into a featureless void and then scrambling (and often failing) to fill the void has. I am improving, both in providing enough material that the void, whatever shape it takes is harder to wander into and filling it in when they do.

Thank you for answering my PS.

To jayem: The part about missing middles is true, although they may not be where we think they are. It can be hard to tell. Anyways, my definition of railroading is just the one I found to be the most useful. Its not official or anything. It is roughly:

Railroading: A player (often the GM) forcing the other players to progress along a particular predetermine path to progress the plot.

[Segev]

I better example is: Fred is hungry and Joe offers a free lunch. Fred then finds out that is only a ham sandwich. Then Fred gets all mad and complains that Joe is trying to ''force railroad'' him into eating only the ham sandwich and thinks that Joe should have personality asked him what he wanted for lunch, before the lunch and then made whatever it was Fred wanted.

Now sure, in theory it would be great if you could alter reality and always get what you want....but that is not reality. The reality is that Joe had an extra ham sandwich, but does not have the ability to buy/make anything Fred wants....he just has the extra sandwich. As others have said, it's not railroading until Joe forces Fred to eat the ham sandwich, or until the DM refuses to allow anything to happen unless and until Fred eats that ham sandwich.


The way out of a sand trap in a sandbox is to lay down some railroad tracks for the players to follow out.Or toss them a hook. If they don't like it, toss them a different hook. Sure, you can get to a point where it's clear the players don't want to play the game you're running, but if they have choices (including the choice to remain in your proverbial "sand trap"), it's not a railroad. If, on the other hand, anything they choose to do that isn't biting one of your hooks automatically fails, then you're railroading them.

A sand box is not a sand trap. A sand box has a lot of toys to play with. A lot of things to build or destroy. A lot of things to investigate and examine, and a number of potential adventures - which may or may not be linear, branching, or site-based - which can be approached in any way that is within the capabilities of the PCs.

A "sand trap" is when the GM has not set up these toys, and instead just says, "there's this world that I'm not bothering to flesh out. What do you want to do in it?" It can also happen when the GM doesn't adequately entice the players with the toys, either by not successfully presenting them in a way that makes the players both interested and feel like they're allowed to pick them up and play with them, or by not presenting them in a way that players are aware they're there.

Those toys are all hooks. All bright little lures into adventures, often interlocked (though not necessarily). The players' ability to choose what toys to play with - what hooks to bite - and how to approach them is what makes it not a railroad.

Even linear adventures need not be railroads, as long as the players are free to go do whatever they want within them.


Like say the players are all super snadboxy and full of arrogant agency and go into a town and pretend to drink at the tavern. And the GM just sits back and ''reacts'' by having the waitress bring more drinks. Exciting game...for some.Not really, no. This is a GM failing to provide hooks. Or even a setting with stuff to do.

Or, if he's provided it, he's failed to let the players observe them. Or he's managed to provide a game they don't want to play, and somebody else should GM.


Some players will get bored and be like ''it is boring just siting in the tavern'' and ask the DM to do something. So this is where the traveler will come into the tavern and tell the tale of the lich king and ask for help....and that is laying the tracks to follow the railroad out of the sand trap. No, that's a plot hook.

If the players bite, great. If they players only bite, though, because the DM says, "Look, guys, this is the only thing other than drinking in the tavern that's going to happen," then it's railroading. And it's not good.

Seriously, literally the only thing going on is there's a lich king, and this traveler is the only person who cares enough to ask for help? He's the only source of information?

Are the players allowed to seek out this lich king and try to join up with his world-conquering army? Are they allowed to approach defeating him by any means other than the very specific method the GM has concocted, and learning about it only via the very specific set of plot elements he's written? Can they make meaningful choices other than the pre-approved ones and still have a chance of success? Are they allowed to define "success" as anything other than one specific outcome, because all others lead to their inevitable doom?

If "yes" to those questions, it still isn't a railroad.

Railroads are characterized by their "guided tour" nature: you go here, you take this path, you make this one of - at best - a few specific possible decisions, and you wind up seeing each set piece along the way so you have a front row seat to the plot.

Heck, Darth Ultron, I suggest you look into an adventure for Iron Kingdoms called The Witchblade Trilogy. It is the quintessential badly-written railroad plot, in my opinion. See if you think it's ideal, or if it's done badly. I would be unsurprised if the ways you'd improve it also make it less of a railroad.


Now some say ''if the players are happy on a whim and they say it is not a railroad, then it is not'', but that is such an odd statement.Nobody's said that. It's a railroad if it's their only choice, whether they're happy with it or not. Whether they see the rails or not. (Hiding the rails is a good way to prevent people from becoming unhappy with a railroad.) It's not a railroad if they can (a) refuse to go along with it, and (b) can take it in any direction they want after they've bitten the hook.

If there is only one hook, and you're going to run the "sand trap" bar scene with nothing happening until they bite, that's a railroad. An extremely passive-aggressive one. If, however, you lay out a bunch of hooks, and have different ways of approaching the adventure, it's not a railroad. If you have a bunch of hooks, and room to invent their own, and they go to numerous different potential adventures (some of which may interlock), it's a sandbox.


If the adventure was presented, most would say it's a ''railroad adventure'', but if, on a whim, the players using the adventure like it, it's not a railroad? No one can explain that to me and just as the players on a whim like the adventure does not make it not a railroad.It's been explained. In fact, I just did, right above here. I've also done so, personally, before. You've ignored the explanations.


In part, the players' reactions do decide if it is railroading or not. If they go with the planed adventure because they want to than it isn't a railroad because no railroading occurred to force them to take it. I have explained it, call me no one. Of course it is about making you understand, than you're no one.I disagree here. Players' reactions have little to nothing to do with whether it's a railroad. Railroads are defined by the lack of (real) options, not by whether players happen to choose the railroaded choices freely or only after being forced.

It's still a railroad if you never have to enforce the rails. You just got lucky. It's still a railroad if you skillfully hid the rails and manipulated choices without the players realizing they had no other options; you just did it well.

It's not a railroad if the players can make any choice they like, and whether or not the choice can meaningfully impact the outcome has less to do with whether your plot called for the consequences and more to do with how the setting is set up. It can get fuzzy here; some GMs, hearing that railroads are "bad" (they needn't be - the last paragraph outlined two trivial cases where they aren't), will decide that the way to avoid railroading is to build the rails into the setting: the lich king has only one specific weakness and his plots have particular lynchpins that he "just happens" to be too blind to see, but he's brilliantly insightful in every other way and cannot be stopped by the mere mortal power of the rest of the world except by that one critical, specific weakness, which can only be gotten in one particular adventure path that can only be learned about from one particular individual NPC who can only be persuaded to share it if the PCs do specific tasks exactly as requested, and are too powerful to be intimidated into giving the information up without the PCs following their rails...

That's a railroad where "the setting just doesn't make it possible, honest!" and the GM fools himself into thinking he's granting freedom as long as the players think of something "that will work," but he's deliberately set it up so that nothing except his pre-planned solution CAN work.

It's still a railroad, whether players care or even notice or not.


To jayem: You have a slightly different definition of railroading than me. I don't define it as an amount of linearity in the adventure per-say (although it is usually high) but rather the reaction to pushing past that linearity. Stone walling attempts to do so is what creates railroading.This is accurate, however. A linear adventure where the players can say "screw this; we're doing something else" isn't a railroad. It might have an option to ride some rail cars along some tracks, but you can get off of it at any time, and even try to knock over the cars and forge a new ending to the narrative.

It's a railroad if literally the only options are "complete the plot as written, or fail the module."

[Cluedrew]

To Segev: Yeah, my definition of railroading is odd in how it is structured, but the result creates a lot of overlap so it doesn't usually come up. That overlap, and the original reasons why I choose that definition, is why I stick to it even though it is a little different. You see, when I originally heard the terms railroading and railroaded they where almost always applied to the act of the GM shutting down attempts (usually by inserting or "clarifying" elements of the setting to make the attempt fail) to go outside the plot they had planned.

There are a various elements I could have pulled out to form the definition, but the common element seemed to be that stonewalling. So that is the element I ended up focusing on. Some other definitions don't quite make sense. Some would call a GM knowing players so well that you can create an adventure that you can predict where they will go, and planning only for that, is railroading. But to me it is very different, there is no shutdown it is a (perhaps impossible) level of predation and catering to the players.

Mind you I think the definition about a lack of player freedom is pretty good too, I'll think about that one as well.

[LibraryOgre]

Not like you left much to respond too. The way out of a sand trap in a sandbox is to lay down some railroad tracks for the players to follow out. Like say the players are all super snadboxy and full of arrogant agency and go into a town and pretend to drink at the tavern. And the DM just sits back and ''reacts'' by having the waitress bring more drinks. Exciting game...for some. Some players will get bored and be like ''it is boring just siting in the tavern'' and ask the DM to do something. So this is where the traveler will come into the tavern and tell the tale of the lich king and ask for help....and that is laying the tracks to follow the railroad out of the sand trap.

I disagree that's a railroad track. That's a line that's been thrown, but it's not a railroad, because once they start climbing the line, they can go a lot of different ways... or they can ignore the line and go back to drinking and complaining that there's nothing to do.

The thing about a railroad is not that it is a path to follow, but that it is a path you MUST follow. It's not just the tracks, but the engine that you can't overpower without being Superman. A railroad is "You are teleported out of the tavern you were in and into the Dungeon of the Lich King"... because, no matter what they were wanting, they're riding that "Out of the Lich King's Dungeon" train to the end.

[Darth Ultron]

The thing about a railroad is not that it is a path to follow, but that it is a path you MUST follow. It's not just the tracks, but the engine that you can't overpower without being Superman. A railroad is "You are teleported out of the tavern you were in and into the Dungeon of the Lich King"... because, no matter what they were wanting, they're riding that "Out of the Lich King's Dungeon" train to the end.

Well, you ''must'' follow a plot, that is how plots work, at least in a game the makes sense. The players want to slay a red dragon, and the DM ''mentions plot thread'' that lost in the ruins of Zorm is the Orb of Red Dragon Doom. Now sure the players can say, ''nah, we will sing a song and put the dragon to sleep'' or whatever....or they can take the obvious ''hey going after the orb is a good idea''. Of course they don't have much chance of killing the dragon without the orb, no matter what ''wacky things'' they think of...unless the DM alters the game reality and quantum Ogres things the characters want or need. But this comes right back to the railroad, just another set of tracks....and worse passengers that are not even looking out the windows.

And sure in any game you can pull the jerk move of saying ''we don't want to play'' once the game starts and you don't like something.

And the nitpicking does not matter, the characters can ride horses, griffons or even giant snails....but they still have to go to the Ruins of Zorm, as that is where the Orb is. Now some say it's not a railroad to say ''the orb is in spot x and you must go there to get it'', but how and why is it not a railroad? Are not the characters ''forced'' to go to the location? How is it so different from ''your teleported to the ruins of Zorm''?



Are the players allowed to seek out this lich king and try to join up with his world-conquering army? Are they allowed to approach defeating him by any means other than the very specific method the GM has concocted, and learning about it only via the very specific set of plot elements he's written? Can they make meaningful choices other than the pre-approved ones and still have a chance of success? Are they allowed to define "success" as anything other than one specific outcome, because all others lead to their inevitable doom?

If "yes" to those questions, it still isn't a railroad.

Railroads are characterized by their "guided tour" nature: you go here, you take this path, you make this one of - at best - a few specific possible decisions, and you wind up seeing each set piece along the way so you have a front row seat to the plot.
."

Now this might be the core of your wall of text. You are saying it is only a railroad if the DM makes out the adventure before hand?

Like ok, you have session zero. The players sit around and the DM dishes out the setting and plot hooks. And the players say ''we will do this is this way'' vaguely. So the players ''wacky idea...vagely'' is to join the lich king. So everyone goes home and the DM makes the ''Hirelings of the Lich King '' adventure. And like any normal adventure it has a plot to follow and a story....and lots of railroading. But the players picked all this in session 0, so they can't say it's railroading?

So again, it's coming back to the player whim, ''if they like it is a perfect sandbox, and if they don't like it is a railroad''.

[Cluedrew]

Well, you ''must'' follow a plot, that is how plots work, at least in a game the makes sense.And this might be the fundamental problem. The best games I have played, we didn't follow the plot, more the plot followed us. We go looking for Viking ruins, it becomes part of the plot (even without a hook). It was fun, with all players contributing to the party and to the developing narrative, and it made sense to me. And it makes sense to many other people.

For instance you argue that the party will have little chance of success without the Orb of Red Dragon Doom. First off that is completely fine, if the want to aim for the long shot they can. Secondly, you say their other ideas are "wacky" like singing the dragon to sleep. Unless you are referring to a particular setting I'm going to say that is a purposefully silly idea to "highlight" (two can play that game) the stupid ideas players suggest. Which is unfair when it is put beside the Orb of Red Dragon Doom. What if they came up with a reasonable idea, like rallying the local population and getting the lord's sedge weapons or collapsing the dragon's cave after given the alchemist a few days to make enough explosives.

Do they still have no chance of success?

In other words, your situation assumes that the players other choices will be thwarted and they can't make meaningful choices and if they go away from the GM's plans they will fail. In other words, that is indeed railroading by three different definitions we have seen recently in this thread. Great, you have proven railroading can happen. But why does that mean all games that make sense have railroading? I don't think it does. You can just play out the natural consequences of the idea, it may have a good chance of success or a very small one. A bit part of railroading is assuming and enforcing the latter, but there is no reason you have to do that. Evaluate the idea on its own merits, not who came up with it.


So again, it's coming back to the player whim, ''if they like it is a perfect sandbox, and if they don't like it is a railroad''.While I'm at it, there are many other words we can you to describe a game, and not all games fall into these two groups. Dungeon crawler for instance, you aren't exploring a wide setting, unless you count the dungeon, so it isn't a sandbox and it is usually about combat more than exploration in either case and it should allow the players to create their own solutions and not be railroaded.

[jayem]

Now this might be the core of your wall of text. You are saying it is only a railroad if the DM makes out the adventure before hand?

Like ok, you have session zero. The players sit around and the DM dishes out the setting and plot hooks. And the players say ''we will do this is this way'' vaguely. So the players ''wacky idea...vagely'' is to join the lich king. So everyone goes home and the DM makes the ''Hirelings of the Lich King '' adventure. And like any normal adventure it has a plot to follow and a story....and lots of railroading. But the players picked all this in session 0, so they can't say it's railroading?

So again, it's coming back to the player whim, ''if they like it is a perfect sandbox, and if they don't like it is a railroad''.

Kind of, except session zero, takes a little while, perhaps a few evenings and there's a bit of discussion about the capability of the characters which is resolved by the means of dice. But when that fluff is finished then the true proper railroad playing game begins as the DM recites what the players chose.

[Segev]

Well, you ''must'' follow a plot, that is how plots work, at least in a game the makes sense. The players want to slay a red dragon, and the DM ''mentions plot thread'' that lost in the ruins of Zorm is the Orb of Red Dragon Doom. Now sure the players can say, ''nah, we will sing a song and put the dragon to sleep'' or whatever....or they can take the obvious ''hey going after the orb is a good idea''. Of course they don't have much chance of killing the dragon without the orb, no matter what ''wacky things'' they think of...unless the DM alters the game reality and quantum Ogres things the characters want or need. But this comes right back to the railroad, just another set of tracks....and worse passengers that are not even looking out the windows.

And sure in any game you can pull the jerk move of saying ''we don't want to play'' once the game starts and you don't like something.

And the nitpicking does not matter, the characters can ride horses, griffons or even giant snails....but they still have to go to the Ruins of Zorm, as that is where the Orb is. Now some say it's not a railroad to say ''the orb is in spot x and you must go there to get it'', but how and why is it not a railroad? Are not the characters ''forced'' to go to the location? How is it so different from ''your teleported to the ruins of Zorm''? It's not railroading to say, "There is an Orb of Red Dragon Slaying in the Ruins of Zorm." It is railroading to say, "The red dragon will be so powerful that nothing the players do except get the Orb of Red Dragon Doom from the Ruins of Zorm can possibly have any effect." This becomes especially egregious when it also includes, "...and the Red Dragon is essentially a force of nature that won't be influenced by anything the players say or do that doesn't involve using the Orb of Red Dragon Doom to destroy it."

Unfortunately, I've had nearly this exact discussion with you before, with different placeholders, so I expect you'll miss the point just as before and instead find some way of pretending that having the MacGuffin of the Orb is the only way to have an adventure for PCs to follow.




Now this might be the core of your wall of text. You are saying it is only a railroad if the DM makes out the adventure before hand?Not at all. I'm saying that it's only a railroad if the DM has decided what the PCs are going to do, what choices they are going to make, before hand.


Like ok, you have session zero. The players sit around and the DM dishes out the setting and plot hooks. And the players say ''we will do this is this way'' vaguely. So the players ''wacky idea...vagely'' is to join the lich king. So everyone goes home and the DM makes the ''Hirelings of the Lich King '' adventure. And like any normal adventure it has a plot to follow and a story....and lots of railroading. But the players picked all this in session 0, so they can't say it's railroading?

So again, it's coming back to the player whim, ''if they like it is a perfect sandbox, and if they don't like it is a railroad''.
Nope. You've missed the point entirely.

Railroading is when the DM has decided that the PCs will side with (or fight against, or whatever he writes the adventure for) the lich-king, and has planned out specifically how they'll achieve what at which time. It's when there is only one plot path, and the PCs may as well be characters in a story the DM has written, with only their individual lines ad libbed and the dice deciding only whether they actually live long enough to get to the next part of the guided tour.

The lich-king adventure, done without railroading, would involve the DM not planning anything the PCs are going to do at all. Instead, the DM figures out who all the major players are amongst the NPCs. He figures out what the lich-king wants, and what the lich-king has access to, and how he's going to get things he needs for his plans that he doesn't already have. He figures out what powers exist in the world to oppose the lich king, and what the lich king plans to do to overcome them and get what he needs.

Note that what he's done so far is tally the state of the setting. He knows what the major factions have and can do. He knows what their plans are, and has a good idea how most of them would react to the planned actions of various proactive NPC figures. He knows what the proactive NPCs - particularly the lich king - have planned and plan to do, and how they plan to achieve their goals. He knows what obstacles they'll face, if they carry out their plans as intended, and whether they'll have to change those plans based on the obstacles those NPCs may not foresee.

He then also has some ideas on what ways these activities might draw the interest of the PCs. Why they might care, and how to get their attention. What factions might seek them out, or might have other ways of bringing them into it. These are the plot hooks.

In fact, as the GM fleshes out his setting, he might realize that some of his factions have problems other than the lich king, or ambitions which initially have little to do with him. They, too, might have things the PCs could be interested in, or be up to things the PCs might want to stop or get involved in. He can lay out more hooks for those. And, eventually, since the lich-king has world-shaking plans, the things the PCs come to care about regarding those groups and factions they're involved with will become entangled in the lich-king's activities, and they'll have reason to pay attention to that.

"The old guy comes to the tavern to ask for help against the lich-king" is one such hook, however, that could get them right into the "anti-lich-king" adventure. You may even have some linear dungeoneering or the like planned to help root this out.

But the key is that, if the party goes off those rails, the GM doesn't have to end the session and rewrite his plot for their new idea. Let's say they do decide to try to join up with the lich-king; the GM doesn't have to re-write anything. He didn't write "and then the PCs go and fight the lich-king's lieutenant, Sergeant Skeleton." He just knows that Sergeant Skeleton is the intelligent skeletal hydra that is plaguing the old man who came to ask for help. If the players take a tactic of reaching out to the lich-king as allies/henchmen, the GM knows enough to figure out what the lich-king's (or his minions') response will be.

Each step of the advancing plot, the PCs act in response to the state of things, and then the DM has the world react to them, updating the state. If they don't act, the world updates according to the actions of all the NPCs trying to enact what the DM knows they're planning.

At no point does the DM have to railroad, because the PCs aren't required to do any specific thing to "advance the plot." The plot advances with or without them, but the direction it takes is (heavily) influenced by what they choose to do. And they do have meaningful choices, because they're just people in a world, not characters riding a train that tells them a story about what they do each step of the way, regardless of whether they'd rather have done something differently.

[Mordar]

It's not railroading to say, "There is an Orb of Red Dragon Slaying in the Ruins of Zorm." It is railroading to say, "The red dragon will be so powerful that nothing the players do except get the Orb of Red Dragon Doom from the Ruins of Zorm can possibly have any effect." This becomes especially egregious when it also includes, "...and the Red Dragon is essentially a force of nature that won't be influenced by anything the players say or do that doesn't involve using the Orb of Red Dragon Doom to destroy it."

Now you've put me on railroad tracks that won't even get me to the destination...what with your orb changing from Red Dragon Slaying to Red Dragon Doom. Unless I like it better, this way, of course, in which case I'm just an arrogant player that happens to believe you, the omnipotent DM has kowtowed to me. Then you have surrendered your God-given power of the Basement Troll to rule all things in our game. In which case, of course, it is a nice sandbox.



Not at all. I'm saying that it's only a railroad if the DM has decided what the PCs are going to do, what choices they are going to make, before hand.


Nope. You've missed the point entirely.

Railroading is when the DM has decided that the PCs will side with (or fight against, or whatever he writes the adventure for) the lich-king, and has planned out specifically how they'll achieve what at which time. It's when there is only one plot path, and the PCs may as well be characters in a story the DM has written, with only their individual lines ad libbed and the dice deciding only whether they actually live long enough to get to the next part of the guided tour.

The lich-king adventure, done without railroading, would involve the DM not planning anything the PCs are going to do at all. Instead, the DM figures out who all the major players are amongst the NPCs. He figures out what the lich-king wants, and what the lich-king has access to, and how he's going to get things he needs for his plans that he doesn't already have. He figures out what powers exist in the world to oppose the lich king, and what the lich king plans to do to overcome them and get what he needs.

Note that what he's done so far is tally the state of the setting. He knows what the major factions have and can do. He knows what their plans are, and has a good idea how most of them would react to the planned actions of various proactive NPC figures. He knows what the proactive NPCs - particularly the lich king - have planned and plan to do, and how they plan to achieve their goals. He knows what obstacles they'll face, if they carry out their plans as intended, and whether they'll have to change those plans based on the obstacles those NPCs may not foresee.

He then also has some ideas on what ways these activities might draw the interest of the PCs. Why they might care, and how to get their attention. What factions might seek them out, or might have other ways of bringing them into it. These are the plot hooks.

In fact, as the GM fleshes out his setting, he might realize that some of his factions have problems other than the lich king, or ambitions which initially have little to do with him. They, too, might have things the PCs could be interested in, or be up to things the PCs might want to stop or get involved in. He can lay out more hooks for those. And, eventually, since the lich-king has world-shaking plans, the things the PCs come to care about regarding those groups and factions they're involved with will become entangled in the lich-king's activities, and they'll have reason to pay attention to that.

"The old guy comes to the tavern to ask for help against the lich-king" is one such hook, however, that could get them right into the "anti-lich-king" adventure. You may even have some linear dungeoneering or the like planned to help root this out.

But the key is that, if the party goes off those rails, the GM doesn't have to end the session and rewrite his plot for their new idea. Let's say they do decide to try to join up with the lich-king; the GM doesn't have to re-write anything. He didn't write "and then the PCs go and fight the lich-king's lieutenant, Sergeant Skeleton." He just knows that Sergeant Skeleton is the intelligent skeletal hydra that is plaguing the old man who came to ask for help. If the players take a tactic of reaching out to the lich-king as allies/henchmen, the GM knows enough to figure out what the lich-king's (or his minions') response will be.

Each step of the advancing plot, the PCs act in response to the state of things, and then the DM has the world react to them, updating the state. If they don't act, the world updates according to the actions of all the NPCs trying to enact what the DM knows they're planning.

At no point does the DM have to railroad, because the PCs aren't required to do any specific thing to "advance the plot." The plot advances with or without them, but the direction it takes is (heavily) influenced by what they choose to do. And they do have meaningful choices, because they're just people in a world, not characters riding a train that tells them a story about what they do each step of the way, regardless of whether they'd rather have done something differently.

Stop trying to hide useful definitions and clear points by writing all these words. They're all wrong anyhow because they don't agree with me.

Tonight the role of "Obstinate disagreer" will be played by...

- M

[Darth Ultron]

Unfortunately, I've had nearly this exact discussion with you before, with different placeholders, so I expect you'll miss the point just as before and instead find some way of pretending that having the MacGuffin of the Orb is the only way to have an adventure for PCs to follow.

The vast majority of the time there will be only one way to do something. And even if there are a couple options it is often ''this one has a 75% chance of working'' and the other two have 12% and 13%. So sure you can try the one that has the 12%, but chances are it won't work.

And unless the DM is ready to Quantum Ogre any suggestions the players make, there won't be other ways.

The Ring has to be destroyed where it was created in Mt. Doom. No other way will work, no matter what else you think of and try....



Not at all. I'm saying that it's only a railroad if the DM has decided what the PCs are going to do, what choices they are going to make, before hand.





At no point does the DM have to railroad, because the PCs aren't required to do any specific thing to "advance the plot." The plot advances with or without them, but the direction it takes is (heavily) influenced by what they choose to do. And they do have meaningful choices, because they're just people in a world, not characters riding a train that tells them a story about what they do each step of the way, regardless of whether they'd rather have done something differently.

So, it's only a railroad if the plot only advances by the actions of the characters? If the DM just runs with the plot, and ignores what the characters do, it's not a railroad? That sounds like a bad game to me.

Like your session 0 thing is great. The DM sits down and says ''here is everything I created''. Then the players look everything over and say ''we will do X''. Ok, that is all great for session 0 before the game starts. But that does not make a game....it is literally all pregame.

And it is simply impossible for a Dm to ''make up everything'', there has to be a limited focus. You simply can not make up anything remotely complex in one second. So the DM can have the names of 100 NPC made, but can't pre make 100 stat blocks, plus another 200-300 for minions, pets, monsters, and such. Yes, if your in a light hearted simple game the DM can just use something from a book ''oh, lord Zom is this guys stat block on page 44'' or worse can ''just say'' that ''oh his AC is 25'' and ''oh he has a +15 to hit'' without making a character stat block at all. But a in depth, complicated game needs details.

And it's not just combat details, it is world details. Even if the DM could write down say 50,000 words per NPC it would still not cover everything about the NPC...and worse like 49,000 of the words might be wasted and not used. There needs to be a focus, and that is why plots exist.

And yes, the players that whine and cry about having agency and changing the world in meaningful ways can ''pick a plot'', but after that they have to ride that plot train.

[jayem]

The vast majority of the time there will be only one way to do something. And even if there are a couple options it is often ''this one has a 75% chance of working'' and the other two have 12% and 13%. So sure you can try the one that has the 12%, but chances are it won't work.

And unless the DM is ready to Quantum Ogre any suggestions the players make, there won't be other ways.

The Ring has to be destroyed where it was created in Mt. Doom. No other way will work, no matter what else you think of and try....


Really, if that were the case (except for the super structure of getting the one ring to mount doom) it would have been a lot easier for Sauron (who of course bet on the wrong horses). And of course LoTR is a novel and under different rules.



Like your session 0 thing is great. The DM sits down and says ''here is everything I created''. Then the players look everything over and say ''we will do X''. Ok, that is all great for session 0 before the game starts. But that does not make a game....it is literally all pregame.
.

No it's not pregame, rather that's exactly what makes it a game (I suppose you could point out that say snakes and ladders is also a game, but then even that's got more gamishness than your version, at least it's your bad dice rolling fault that sends you down a snake)

[Segev]

The vast majority of the time there will be only one way to do something. And even if there are a couple options it is often ''this one has a 75% chance of working'' and the other two have 12% and 13%. So sure you can try the one that has the 12%, but chances are it won't work.

And unless the DM is ready to Quantum Ogre any suggestions the players make, there won't be other ways.

The Ring has to be destroyed where it was created in Mt. Doom. No other way will work, no matter what else you think of and try....

The "vast majority" of stories shouldn't be The Lord of the Rings. In fact, despite the fact that it did have only one possible solution for the Best End, it's impossible to say whether that story was on rails or not. DM of the Rings obviously portrayed it that way, and any game which tries to follow it exactly obviously will be, but it's unclear whether the main characters could have made other choices.

This is because novels are not games. They're different media entirely, moreso than even novels vs. movies vs. graphic novels vs. TV series vs. plays. Games have a whole extra layer of interaction which makes them have vastly different storytelling requirements.


And this illustrates the problem with your conception of a game: you conceive of it as a novel, and if the DM doesn't force the PCs down the storyline as plotted, you assume nothing can happen. As evidenced by how horribly, badly you miss my point here:



So, it's only a railroad if the plot only advances by the actions of the characters? If the DM just runs with the plot, and ignores what the characters do, it's not a railroad? That sounds like a bad game to me. This has almost no bearing on the quote of mine to which it's replying. It's responding to something I didn't write, that exists only in your head. It contains assumptions (e.g. "the DM running the world must entail ignoring what the characters do") that are flatly contradicted by what is quoted.

It generally isn't a railroad if the plot advances in ways influenced by PC actions and choices. However, most railroads make the PCs' actions "important to the plot" by locking the PCs into doing one specific thing. "Yes, the plot revolves around Frodo, who must accept this specific quest and must go on this specific path and make all the pre-planned choices that the plot calls for Frodo to make; that's why it revolves around him!"

Here's how you can tell if "the plot" depending on/reacting to PCs is a railroad or not, in two questions:

1) What happens if the PCs don't do the specific action(s) you planned for them to do?
2) Could any PCs have fit into this plot as long as they did the right actions and made the right choices, and had it come out more or less the same?

If "yes," then it isn't really reacting to the PCs; it's railroading the PCs into playing specific, scripted roles.

What I was describing is a world where the NPCs and the environment are all trying to do stuff. IF there are no PCs present, or the PCs don't do anything, the world still moves. The "plot" advances more or less as the GM probably predicted it would, because he knew what the NPCs and environment would do if the PCs weren't around.

However, because the PCs are around, whatever they get involved in will introduce new factors that wouldn't have been there had the PCs not gotten involved. Perhaps some of it advances in ways the GM predicted; he might know his players or he might have a decent idea of how things go under various contingencies. But even if the PCs totally surprise him with something out of the box or off the wall, the GM knows what exists in his world, what NPCs are there and what their goals are, and thus can figure out how those NPCs will react and what resources become (un)available based on changes the PCs have made to the status quo.

The PCs, if they take a hand in things, absolutely impact "the plot." The world changes according to their actions, and that creates a different situation than if they'd not been there. The GM moves things forward in response.

No rails; the PCs can do anything within their mechanical power, and the GM has not specifically set up the world so that the PCs' mechanical power is useless outside of a narrow metaphorical canyon (which, if he had done, would happen to coincide with where he laid his rails). But the world advances, is impacted by PC choices, etc.


Like your session 0 thing is great. The DM sits down and says ''here is everything I created''. Then the players look everything over and say ''we will do X''. Ok, that is all great for session 0 before the game starts. But that does not make a game....it is literally all pregame. Why? "Here is the world as your PCs see it." "Okay, we do X." "Great! Y happens in response to X." (If they'd done A, instead, B would have happened.) "Cool; now we do Omicron." "...omicron? Uh... huh. I never thought of that. Let me see...that means Beta and Epsilon are now options, when I hadn't thought of that...so those happen now."

Again, Beta and Epsilon weren't events the GM pre-planned, but when the PCs surprised him with Omicron, it changed the field in ways he hadn't predicted. Still, because he knows what the field looks like now, he realizes that Beta and Epsilon now CAN happen, and are the most logical thing to happen.

Perhaps he had this complicated political infighting thing going on, with an approaching army that might unify the factions against it or might overwhelm them as they refuse to coalesce. What he didn't see happening was the PCs utterly destroying one faction and making it look like the actions of the approaching army, but that removed the reason why two factions the GM had thought would have to be the final burrs to be ironed out before unification could occur to unite much earlier, while both still have their resources on hand, and causes a completely different bloc to form against them than he'd originally planned!

It's like playing chess, only much more involved. The players make any legal move on the board, and the GM responds. If they move as he expected, he makes the moves he expected to in response. If they do something totally out of the blue (why on earth did they throw away their Queen like that?), then he changes his play. You know, rather than forcing them to make only the moves his railroad script of moves allows, because he'd planned the game out to its final checkmate, darn it!


And it is simply impossible for a Dm to ''make up everything'', there has to be a limited focus.Sure. But you're implying a false dichotomy, where either the DM makes up "everything" or he only makes up one long set of rails.


You simply can not make up anything remotely complex in one second. So the DM can have the names of 100 NPC made, but can't pre make 100 stat blocks, plus another 200-300 for minions, pets, monsters, and such. Yes, if your in a light hearted simple game the DM can just use something from a book ''oh, lord Zom is this guys stat block on page 44'' or worse can ''just say'' that ''oh his AC is 25'' and ''oh he has a +15 to hit'' without making a character stat block at all. But a in depth, complicated game needs details.Sure. And the more planned out the monsters, politics, resources, etc. are, the easier a sandbox is to run.

But the key is that these pre-planned things all exist to let the DM know what is there. When the PCs choose to go fight Lord Zom, he knows what Lord Zom's resources are. He knows how he's defended. He knows what Lord Zom is generally up to, and can make some specific decisions about what he's doing at the moment the PCs actively start focusing on him.

Let's say Lord Zom was not a terribly dynamic figure, and just has a few hooks out there of general mayhem and nuisance, for argument's sake. The PCs take an interest because they think he sounds like a bad guy, or one player's backstory involved Zom's army wiping out his hometown, or the DM had decided one of Zom's hooks was his possession of the True Crown of Curly Kings, which he stole from his former home and precipitated a succession crisis in the Halfling empire.

The PCs decide they want revenge, or the crown, or whatever.

Lord Zom's keep is a site-based adventure. The DM knows how it's laid out. He knows what monsters are where, and has a good idea of how to determine where which lieutenants and minibosses are when the PCs arrive. He knows their capabilities, and what the security measures are.

The players can approach it however they like. As a straight-forward dungeon crawl, they have to sneak in and keep the alarm from being raised lest they face the whole keep coming down on them. As an infiltration mission, they can figure out how to get allowed legitimate entrance, and from there how to get into unauthorized places. Do they want to level the keep? Just assassinate Lord Zom? Just steal the crown and get out hopefully undetected? These all require different approaches.

The group I play Rifts with would probably try to lure him out to assassinate him, or try to convince him to trade the crown for something else (and then steal it, as they probably are lying about what they have to trade for it). My character would either try infiltration (then fail and go UberMonster on it), or just go in for straight-up confrontation. He's got more than a bit of an ego and a lot of personal power (though limited reach to use it with, and that means anybody with a good laser rifle is a hassle in combat).

But the point is, HOW they take on Lord Zom's site of his keep is up to them. Sure, things are where they are, but the way the party handles getting what they want out of it - and even WHAT they choose to consider a victory condition - is up to them.

As opposed to a railroad, which would say that Lord Zom is the villain, and the PCs must go after him, but first they have to do these three specific dungeons and seek out these other NPCs to learn these specific things, and finally they must go through Lord Zom's keep exactly through this specific entrance. (Most railroads at least open up a bit on allowing the party to wind through the dungeon however they like, but some might even try to force them to go down only one path, with everything else being a distraction.)



Note, you don't have to have everything written to the last detail. Just enough to know how your world will act without the PCs, and to know therefore how that changes with the PCs make choices that change your world's status.

[Cluedrew]

To Darth Ultron: There are lot of things I could disagree with in that post, from adventure design to your biased phrases, put instead I would like to ask you about. What is plot? Not a formal definition, just roughly what it means in a role-playing game.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I would suggest that this discussion might be better handled in its own thread, not cluttering this one.

[Cluedrew]

Well, if someone makes that other thread, I'd be happy to join there.

[ArcanaGuy]

{{scrubbed}}