Why All the Linear Game Hate?

[lisakheav]

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

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

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

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

{Scrubbed}

[Kaervaslol]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andreaz]

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

[Sidmen]

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

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

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

[MickJay]

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

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

[Raum]

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

Heh, this is just as one sided as the opinions you're railing against.

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

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

[valadil]

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

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

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

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

[Xelbiuj]

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

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

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

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

[GungHo]

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

[mjlush]

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

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

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

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

Extreme and Rude Answer

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

More Balanced Answer

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

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

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

[Need_A_Life]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Torath]

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

[Raum]

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

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

[Grinner]

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

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

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Spambot indeed.

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

[mjlush]

Great Modthulhu: Spambot indeed.

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

Could you delete the offending link from the parent?

[valadil]

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

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

[GoatToucher]

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

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

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

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

[geeky_monkey]

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

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

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

[CalamaroJoe]

Well played, spambot!

Be careful glorifying a banned poster!

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

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

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

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

[elliott20]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Radar]

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

Mr Munroe had a similar idea (warning: single bad word inside), but I don't think we will hit information singularity on silicon hardware.

Anyway, this is a prime example of a really bad case of railroading (for those, who still didn't stumble upon DM of The Rings).

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

[elliott20]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Glyphstone]

Could you delete the offending link from the parent?

What link?

[Rhynn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Radar]

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

Heh, reminds me of one of my very first games. It was a one shot adventure and I rolled up a thief of sorts, because the DM said, we'll really need someone with those skills later on. We meet some rich guy in a tavern, who wants to hire us (how unexpected!) and after agreeing to do his bidding we are left with a few hours to kill before the work starts (some hostage rescue plan).
I thought to myslelf: "It's a big city with a busy market, I'm short on cash and it would be a shame to let all those nifty thieving skills go to waste."
To make things quick, the DM described some rnadom richman and told me to roll the dice.
*rolls* Fumble!
I'm noticed before I cut the purse, so I try to at least run away.
*rolls* Fumble!
I got smacked in the face and lights went out. The DM gave me another chance, since I woke up before they draged me to jail.
*rolls* Fumble!
Needles to say, I spent the whole adventure in chains and the party had to do without the thief they did need. Somehow they did the job anyway.

[elliott20]

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

[Acanous]

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

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

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

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

So that's why railroading gets flack.

[oxybe]

it's all about expectations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SowZ]

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

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

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

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

{Scrubbed}

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

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

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