Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[Segev]

Where most people argue with you, Darth Ultron, is your characterization of all "real" games as railroads where the PCs need to be led around by the nose. A true railroad has the PCs' path plotted out for them. A true sandbox has things that are going on which the PCs can try to ride along or disrupt.

Good post. I think I get it now.

1.Normal railroaded game: Where the players willing follow the plot to have fun with the DM.

2.Sandbox: Where the players don't follow anything of the DMs and willing disrupt the game.

That makes sense to me.

Given that you had to deliberately ignore the extremely obvious spoiler block on what I meant by "disruptive" to come to this conclusion, I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith, and know you're doing so and know that you're deliberately using a bad, incorrect, uncommon, and ultimately useless definition of "normal railroad game."

That said, I am a sucker, so I'll bite the bait one more time.

No.

1. Railroad game: Where the plot has specific roles the PCs are to fill, and requires the PCs to play particular ways and take particular paths for the plot to advance, lest it break down and be "disrupted" in a way that makes the DM unable to progress.

2. Sandbox game: Where the "plot" is a combination of stuff that's happening if the PCs don't intervene, and the PCs' interventions causing those events to alter.




The difference is that a sandbox doesn't have a pre-scripted part for the PCs to play. When the PCs "choose a plot" (as you keep trying to put it), they aren't jumping into gaping holes in the narrative and filling them, riding along the DM's pre-scripted path. Instead, they're seeing something that the DM has going on, and getting involved. Their involvement changes how it goes, according to how they involve themselves. The DM has not created a role for them to fill, nor a series of events which are the pre-scripted result of PC actions. Instead, he has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions, altering the outcomes of what would have happened if the PCs weren't there.

[Lorsa]

My relentless procrastinative thinking about RPGs, and D&D in particular, has led me to a certain way of categorising games and I'm interested in seeing if people agree with this model and if so which type of game they prefer.

There are GM-led games and player-led games. In the GM-led game, the GM presents a scenario with a goal, and the players engage with that scenario and try to achieve that goal. In a player-led game the GM provides only an environment, a world, and the players explore it at their leisure and choose a goal themselves; the GM is there to facilitate this process and make it as much fun as possible.

I think this is slightly different form the distinction between "linear" and "sandbox" games. The way I see it, if the GM presents a small scenario - a village and its surroundings, even a single dungeon - with a definite goal but leaves the players to figure out how to go about achieving the goal, that's essentially a miniature sandbox. But it's still a GM-led adventure because the GM chose the objective, not the players.

Now an admission: it seems that the majority of players want player-led adventures. Player agency seems to be by far most people's first priority, and freedom to achieve a goal however you like is meaningless if the goal has been dictated by the GM. I feel I'm very much in a minority in that, both as a player and as a GM, I favour GM-led adventures. I find player-led adventures often fun but not ultimately satisfying. They sprawl out in too many directions, they go on indefinitely and tend to involve at least as much deciding what to do as doing. Most of all they become vague, incoherent. There's a story but it's baggy and stretched out, like a novel that hasn't been edited. There's a lack of focus. To me, total player agency is not worth this.

By contrast, in a good GM-led adventure (whether it's a published module or something the GM designed themselves) I feel like I've taken part in something tangible, something that's a work in the sense that a novel or film is a work. It seems paradoxical, considering that the player-led game is intended to give you the chance to properly explore and roleplay your character, but as a player I find myself much more able to do this if my character is dropped into the GM's scenario than if he's left to wander around and decide for himself what to do.

Of course it is entirely subjective, and I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind about how RPGs "should" be played. What I am interested in is getting an idea of how many people feel the same way as me. Do you prefer GM-led adventures? Do you prefer player-led adventures? Do you think it's a false dichotomy and I'm talking ****e?

I think it's an interesting way to try and analyze games. Like most things though it's more of a scale and not a simple binary choice. Most good games I've been in start off being more GM-led at the start and then move on to being more player-led as the game progress. This is according to your definition that is.

As we are into definitions and discussion railroads vs. sandbox with Darth Ultron yet again (who seem to be speaking a completely different language to the rest of us), the way I see things is this:

Railroad = The GM has written a book and wants players to experience it
Sandbox = The GM has created a world and wants the players to experience it

GM-led = The world has clear adventure hooks, problems or situations the players can choose engage with
Player-led = The world offers no such adventure hooks, problems or situations, the players create their own

With these four axes, the games I often run would be described as GM-led sandbox games. The worst type of game I could think of would be the player-led railroad game. I have actually been in one that could be described as such, and it was awful.

[2D8HP]

The worst type of game I could think of would be the player-led railroad game. I have actually been in one that could be described as such, and it was awful.

"Player-led railroad"?

How does such an anti-awesome monstrosity even exist?

Please warn us!

[Frozen_Feet]

Oh, it happens in play-by-post freeforms all the time.

Usually it goes like this: some clique of players come up with a "real cool" story arc without really considering how long it will take to implement. Then slowly but surely the game gets choked up by the players struggling to hit all the predetermined highs and lows, with characters, events and (at worst) players that don't fit the Grand Vision being sidelined.

It's also possible for a player to railroad themselves by making a highly reactionary character, failing to exercise creative agency or insisting that a character's rank/station/canonical superpower requires that character's presence in [some scenario]. Example: insisting a police officer must be present at every crimescene of the game.

Settings with long-range ESP like Ki detection or Locate person or whatever are especially prone to this because people have unfortunate habit to use them as "plot sense" and do not let little things like time and space prevent them from insisting their character should be part of or at least aware of every scene.

[Jay R]

Railroad = The GM has written a book and wants players to experience it
Sandbox = The GM has created a world and wants the players to experience it

These are overly simple definitions.

A railroad is a sequence of events, each of which must be met in order, and solved with the single pre-set solution. If you never think to touch the purple hilt of your sword to the chartreuse spot on the door, you will never pass through the door, never find the Mace of Guffin needed to travel to where the BBEG is, and thus, you will never go further in the one and only adventure.

The railroad track goes through that door, and the purple hilt is your ticket to the depot with the Mace of Guffin..

I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

[2D8HP]

Mace of Guffin

"Mace of Guffin"?

I HAVE A QUEST!

(But first I must consult with Hitchcock the Sage)

[Stealth Marmot]

This thread definitely gets into one of the most abstract and argued part of gaming, not just Tabletop games.

Basically, the concept of linear verse non-linear.

What is often forgotten is that Linear and Non-linear aren't either or, they are a spectrum, based on how tightly the sequence of evens will occur. A certain level of linearity is needed in order to make a coherent story, otherwise you just get a game of Minecraft. However, there cannot be too much linearity, or else the players feel like they aren't even playing.

There is a word that I like to use a lot when discussing literature and gaming:

Agency.

This is a VERY important word and concept for writers, game designers, and GMs alike. How much control over their lives do the characters/PCs have?

A character will not have entire control, because things will happen beyond their power, the question is, how much does their decision affect the consequences, and how much control did they have over making that decision to begin with?

It gets complicated, but a character who suddenly is asked by a deity "Pick one land to live and one to destroy", that has no agency for the character because they had no control over what lead to them having to make that decision. If instead the player had learned of an evil plot to destroy both lands and got to the macguffin in time, but only had enough capability to save one of the lands, then they have much more agency.

A GM and/or game designer needs to provide situations where decisions matter, and the sequences that happen afterwards are determined by their decisions and actions, but also needs to provide enough structure so that the player can have things to react to, confront, seek out, or otherwise get entangled with. Conflict drives a story.

Long story short, a GM/DM has to figure out how much agency a player has, trying to make sure they have enough to make them feel like they have full control of the character, but not so much that they are not motivated to engage in the story.

And each GM has to figure out how much they need to give their players and how much structure is needed and what they can do to match their particular style.

All about agency.

[Max_Killjoy]

This thread definitely gets into one of the most abstract and argued part of gaming, not just Tabletop games.

Basically, the concept of linear verse non-linear.

What is often forgotten is that Linear and Non-linear aren't either or, they are a spectrum, based on how tightly the sequence of evens will occur. A certain level of linearity is needed in order to make a coherent story, otherwise you just get a game of Minecraft. However, there cannot be too much linearity, or else the players feel like they aren't even playing.

There is a word that I like to use a lot when discussing literature and gaming:

Agency.

This is a VERY important word and concept for writers, game designers, and GMs alike. How much control over their lives do the characters/PCs have?

A character will not have entire control, because things will happen beyond their power, the question is, how much does their decision affect the consequences, and how much control did they have over making that decision to begin with?

It gets complicated, but a character who suddenly is asked by a deity "Pick one land to live and one to destroy", that has no agency for the character because they had no control over what lead to them having to make that decision. If instead the player had learned of an evil plot to destroy both lands and got to the macguffin in time, but only had enough capability to save one of the lands, then they have much more agency.

A GM and/or game designer needs to provide situations where decisions matter, and the sequences that happen afterwards are determined by their decisions and actions, but also needs to provide enough structure so that the player can have things to react to, confront, seek out, or otherwise get entangled with. Conflict drives a story.

Long story short, a GM/DM has to figure out how much agency a player has, trying to make sure they have enough to make them feel like they have full control of the character, but not so much that they are not motivated to engage in the story.

And each GM has to figure out how much they need to give their players and how much structure is needed and what they can do to match their particular style.

All about agency.

Character agency is critical in fiction. Lack of character agency (or potential agency if the character is one who refuses to act) is a sign that I'm not going to care much for a story.

In an RPG, there's also the need for player agency, and the two are intrinsically interwoven.

[Darth Ultron]

The difference is that a sandbox doesn't have a pre-scripted part for the PCs to play. When the PCs "choose a plot" (as you keep trying to put it), they aren't jumping into gaping holes in the narrative and filling them, riding along the DM's pre-scripted path. Instead, they're seeing something that the DM has going on, and getting involved. Their involvement changes how it goes, according to how they involve themselves. The DM has not created a role for them to fill, nor a series of events which are the pre-scripted result of PC actions. Instead, he has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions, altering the outcomes of what would have happened if the PCs weren't there.

But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot. It has a path and story and pre scripted events and a time table. If it does not have them things, then it's not a plot...it's just random stuff happening randomly. The plot is what has everything make sense.

To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''. It does not matter if the DM has an ''evil railroad plot'' or they are just ''impossibly false improvising'', it's the same thing.

Like start with the basic plot of ''the PC's are going into the evlen woods to find a lost magic item'' (and yes, we are saying the ''sandboxy'' players did eventually pick this plot with their own free will)

Now, the Railroad DM makes the setting and an adventure, including encounters, NPCs, creatures, interesting things and notes. And the DM connects everything together in logical ways. For example the DM makes an elven king and his brother the rebel bandit and some politics and backstory. The DM also makes a note that ''the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And dozens of other things.

Now Sandbox DM either has nothing prepared at all or has a random pile of mostly crunchy ''elf stuff''. So this DM ''randomly'' makes an elf king when the PC's enter the woods and lets say he also ''randomly makes the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And lets say this DM ''randomly'' makes the kings rebel brother too. Though, of course, this makes both games all most identical, except the railroad game has tons more detail.

The Sandbox can only be blank for a couple minutes, as once the DM starts making things you can't avoid railroad plots, unless the game is pointless and makes no sense. Like when the Pc's just destroy the woods as they are ''so super awesome'', the normal railroad game elf king would be upset and take action. Now the sandboxy elf king will ''react to the PCs' actions'', following the railroading plot the sandbox game is not meant to have...

So how is the Sandbox different?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''.

The DM reacting to the PCs' actions is exactly the opposite of the DM having a railroaded plot, because in a railroaded plot there's only one "correct" way to proceed, and the PCs have to react to the DM's plans and figure that correct way out. To use your elven magic item example:

Now, the Railroad DM makes the setting and an adventure, including encounters, NPCs, creatures, interesting things and notes. And the DM connects everything together in logical ways. For example the DM makes an elven king and his brother the rebel bandit and some politics and backstory. The DM also makes a note that ''the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And dozens of other things.

This is what a sandbox DM does too; statting up encounters, placing interesting things in the setting, giving NPCs backstories and motivations, and so forth is a constant for both game types. The thing is, though, that none of that is a plot, it's the background. You've described creating Rivendell for the Lord of the Rings campaign, but the plot is what happens when the Fellowship arrives.

In a railroad campaign, one of the things the DM does when creating the above setting and background material is decide how the adventure "should" progress. Let's say that the lost elven magic item is an Excalibur-style "whoever has this item is the true king" item, and the DM decides that PCs should team up with the king's brother to find it, because the king would rather it stay lost, so his preparation assumes that's what will happen: he stats up encounters with the king's guard (because the PCs will be aligned with the bandits), but not encounters with bandits (because they'll be allied with the PCs) and not encounters with elven commoners (because they're irrelevant to the DM's plot).

The PCs show up and whenever they try to do anything but join up with the bandits, they're stymied. The party wants to talk to the king to ask for help finding this item, because he likes nature-lovers and the party includes two rangers and a druid? Oh, the king isn't seeing any non-elven visitors now. The party wants to find an intermediary to speak with the king? Oh, no one will cooperate. The party says screw it, let's just search the forest ourselves? Oh, only the bandit leader knows the forest well enough to have a chance to find it. And so on: the party is steered in the direction the DM wants until they give in or the game folds. That's a railroad.

A sandbox campaign, by contrast, is created without that focus on a single plot. The sandbox DM in this scenario stats up encounters with the king's guard, but also with the bandits, elven commoners, and various non-elves who live in the forest, too, and jots down notes about how they'll react to the PCs if they're on their own, if they're with the king's guard, if they're with the bandits, etc. The PCs show up, and the results of their plans are based not on the DM's desire for a certain plot, but on their actions and character. If the PCs decide they want to talk with the king and ask for his help, the king will probably readily agree if it's a party of elven rangers and druids, probably refuse if it's a party of half-orc barbarians and blighters, and probably require some convincing if it's a bunch of human fighters and clerics. If the PCs decide they want to look around the forest on their own, tromping through the trees won't really get them anywhere but making allies with the native fey, staying away from guard patrols, and so forth will bear fruit. No one particular approach is forced on the PCs, and the campaign doesn't bend around the PCs to make things go the way the DM wants.

And of course both of these campaign styles can be done on-the-fly instead of being prepared as such. If the PCs come up with something the DM hasn't prepared in the Forest Temple where the magic item is stored, so he throws in an unbreakable puzzle door on the spur of the moment and the players have to basically read his mind to come up with the right answer, that's characteristic of a railroad. If the PCs say "So, the king is a high elf and wants to keep his power, and his brother wants to steal the item for himself; are there any wood elves on the other side of the forest who might be able to help us find it without trying to steal it for themselves?" and the DM responds "Uh...yes, yes there are totally wood elves in this forest" and then pulls up some NPCs (pre-statted, from the books, or on the fly) to use for the wood elf tribe, that's characteristic of a sandbox.

The Sandbox can only be blank for a couple minutes, as once the DM starts making things you can't avoid railroad plots, unless the game is pointless and makes no sense. Like when the Pc's just destroy the woods as they are ''so super awesome'', the normal railroad game elf king would be upset and take action. Now the sandboxy elf king will ''react to the PCs' actions'', following the railroading plot the sandbox game is not meant to have...

In a railroad game, the PCs wouldn't be able to destroy the forest because the DM wanted the PCs to join up with the bandits to find the item and overthrow the king. In a sandbox game, destroying the forest changes the current plot from "try to find the ancient elven item" to "screw these elves, burn it all down" and the PCs get to deal with the fallout from pissing off an entire elven kingdom and all the forest's inhabitants, and whether or not they keep looking for the item or high-tail it out of there is up to the party. The game doesn't become a railroad just because NPCs are doing anything at all, otherwise the concept of a "railroad" loses all meaning.

[2D8HP]

In an RPG, there's also the need for player agency.....

But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot.....

I feel like I'm in the odd position of at least in part agreeing with both Max and Darth (or at least with what I think their trying to say).

I also don't think a completely "player-led game is an RPG at all, it's a story-telling game which is not the same thing! And a completely GM-led game is a fiction recitation (an authors reading) also not the same thing!

I've done the story-telling game thing where you take turns adding to the narrative of what the author/player said before, and I've been in the audience for book readings, and while those activities can be fun, if I'm invited to play a FRPG, I'm disappointed if I find that it won't be one.

If I'm a player I except to experience a little bit of exploring a fantastic world. I don't expect to play a game in which I'm equally expected to make up the world, which interferes with my perception of exploring one. I'm also disappointed to find that the "FRPG" I've been to "play" is instead an invitation to be in the audience of an author's story recitation.

As GM I want to do some Worldbuilding, and than be surprised by what happens in the scenes I've set up, if I didn't want to be surprised I'd just write a story! And I absolutely would not want to be a GM in which my role is mostly to hold a stop watch.

It may just be my lack of imagination, but extremely player-led, and completely GM-led RPG's just don't seem that fun to me, and hardly RPG's at all.

Fun is in the balance.

[Lorsa]

"Player-led railroad"?

How does such an anti-awesome monstrosity even exist?

Please warn us!

Apart from the example Frozen Feet listed, there is also the case when the GM provides little structure at the beginning of the campaign. Something like "so, you are in city X, in political campaign Y, what do you do?". Problem is, you know very little of the political landscape of the city, or even your immediate surroundings, to be able to act. Then, when you eventually manage to figure out some course of action that would lead to adventure, the adventures themselves follow a very railroad-y structure.

In a way, I think it arrives from a GM who doesn't want to be railroading, but confuses where the agency needs to be in order to avoid it.

These are overly simple definitions.

A railroad is a sequence of events, each of which must be met in order, and solved with the single pre-set solution. If you never think to touch the purple hilt of your sword to the chartreuse spot on the door, you will never pass through the door, never find the Mace of Guffin needed to travel to where the BBEG is, and thus, you will never go further in the one and only adventure.

The railroad track goes through that door, and the purple hilt is your ticket to the depot with the Mace of Guffin..

I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

I know they were overly simple definitions. Even so, I think they apply to your example. If the GM has written a book, there is already a plan for how every scene should be executed. The book says "the heroes went into the room, then touched the chartreuse spot with the purple hilt of the sword". The world might say "there is enemy X who needs to be stopped with the Mace of Guffin, which lies in maze Y".

So even though I fully recognize the oversimplification, a railroad is pre-written, just like a book. A story, which could evolve in any direction based on the players' choices is neither a book nor a railroad.

But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot. It has a path and story and pre scripted events and a time table. If it does not have them things, then it's not a plot...it's just random stuff happening randomly. The plot is what has everything make sense.

Generally, I thought the PC's picked an adventure and not a plot.

To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''. It does not matter if the DM has an ''evil railroad plot'' or they are just ''impossibly false improvising'', it's the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing.

So how is the Sandbox different?

This has been explained to you several times already, over a multitude of threads.

It may just be my lack of imagination, but extremely player-led, and completely GM-led RPG's just don't seem that fun to me, and hardly RPG's at all.

Fun is in the balance.

I've had similar thoughts actually. Basically, you want the GM to run the world, and you as player to run your own character.

[Cluedrew]

Fun is in the balance.

True, even the most extreme (playable) linear adventure & sandbox game will have a lot of common elements. For instance sandbox games will have moment where the GM pitches bits of plot and the players go with it. Linear games will allow the players to make choices and change the path ahead (although rarely ones that change the main plot).

The difference is in how they decide to balance out. Really (like alignment) they can be considered to mark out areas on a single scale, but the design decisions that lead to them tend to be quite different.

[Quertus]

Settings with long-range ESP like Ki detection or Locate person or whatever are especially prone to this because people have unfortunate habit to use them as "plot sense" and do not let little things like time and space prevent them from insisting their character should be part of or at least aware of every scene.

... And characters being aware of every scene is bad why?

This thread definitely gets into one of the most abstract and argued part of gaming, not just Tabletop games.

Basically, the concept of linear verse non-linear.

What is often forgotten is that Linear and Non-linear aren't either or, they are a spectrum, based on how tightly the sequence of evens will occur. A certain level of linearity is needed in order to make a coherent story, otherwise you just get a game of Minecraft. However, there cannot be too much linearity, or else the players feel like they aren't even playing.

There is a word that I like to use a lot when discussing literature and gaming:

Agency.

This is a VERY important word and concept for writers, game designers, and GMs alike. How much control over their lives do the characters/PCs have?

A character will not have entire control, because things will happen beyond their power, the question is, how much does their decision affect the consequences, and how much control did they have over making that decision to begin with?

It gets complicated, but a character who suddenly is asked by a deity "Pick one land to live and one to destroy", that has no agency for the character because they had no control over what lead to them having to make that decision. If instead the player had learned of an evil plot to destroy both lands and got to the macguffin in time, but only had enough capability to save one of the lands, then they have much more agency.

A GM and/or game designer needs to provide situations where decisions matter, and the sequences that happen afterwards are determined by their decisions and actions, but also needs to provide enough structure so that the player can have things to react to, confront, seek out, or otherwise get entangled with. Conflict drives a story.

Long story short, a GM/DM has to figure out how much agency a player has, trying to make sure they have enough to make them feel like they have full control of the character, but not so much that they are not motivated to engage in the story.

And each GM has to figure out how much they need to give their players and how much structure is needed and what they can do to match their particular style.

All about agency.

That's... a very different definition of agency that I've been using. Hmmm... I suspect that, if you took a 500-level course, to get your masters in agency, these concepts might be mentioned, but I doubt they'd likely matter much in your average game. Usually it's more a matter of having the player able to make choices, and having those choices matter.

Although... this might explain why I didn't like one GMs style of adherence to the law of unintended consequences, without ever giving actions their intended consequences. It was never "yes, but..."; it was always "no, however...".

[thirdkingdom]

I hate to dive back into this, especially with someone who appears to be trolling, but I think the problem is in definition. A linear adventure is not the same as a railroad. Most published adventures, for instance, are *not railroads*. Here are a couple of definitions of what a railroad is:

From rpgtheoryreview, emphasis mine:

Railroading is a term used to describe the imposition of a predefined set of resolutions onto the choices and conflicts that occur in play by a storyteller or game master. Essentially, it's what happens when a person tries to make themselves the sole author of the story. . . .

Most games have some predefined narrative structure, and there's often an agreement among players that games will contain particular plot types or elements. Railroading only takes place when player actions are prevented from having any effect on the flow of events.

From TVtropes

The answer is called Railroading: In short, the GM takes any measure necessary to ensure that there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — his planned direction. . .
In practice, the use of Railroading is generally regarded as one sign of a poor GM, as forcing the players down a single predetermined path (like cars on a railroad track, hence the name) runs against to the collaborative nature of a tabletop RPG in the first place, where every player is allowed an equal voice in dictating what happens next.

From RPG Geek:

Referring to a game's story being forced in a particular direction most often by the GM

An adventure with a "plot" is not by definition a railroad, nor is a linear adventure (such as the many Pathfinder APs); the problem comes into being when the DM has already determined how the players must proceed *and* forces that outcome to occur, regardless of what they actually do.

[Max_Killjoy]

... And characters being aware of every scene is bad why?

The player, or the character?

If the character isn't on hand, and has no way of being aware... how would they be aware?

[Stealth Marmot]

Hmmm... I suspect that, if you took a 500-level course, to get your masters in agency, these concepts might be mentioned...

Sorry I get sort of ranty about this sort of thing. This is all opinion anyway, but I majored in game design and I watch a lot of videos from game critics so I end up spending a lot of time pondering and eventually pontificating about these concepts.

[2D8HP]

Basically, you want the GM to run the world, and you as player to run your own character.

That's it!
Well said, your English is better than mine.
Thanks for distilling it.

[Segev]

Oh, it happens in play-by-post freeforms all the time.

Usually it goes like this: some clique of players come up with a "real cool" story arc without really considering how long it will take to implement. Then slowly but surely the game gets choked up by the players struggling to hit all the predetermined highs and lows, with characters, events and (at worst) players that don't fit the Grand Vision being sidelined.

It's also possible for a player to railroad themselves by making a highly reactionary character, failing to exercise creative agency or insisting that a character's rank/station/canonical superpower requires that character's presence in [some scenario]. Example: insisting a police officer must be present at every crimescene of the game.

Settings with long-range ESP like Ki detection or Locate person or whatever are especially prone to this because people have unfortunate habit to use them as "plot sense" and do not let little things like time and space prevent them from insisting their character should be part of or at least aware of every scene.

This reminds me of a character I half-created specifically to justify always being in interesting scenes, but also just as a way of always being of use to a fellow PC (or to an NPC): the cosmic butler.

He's just so supernally good at butlery that little things like time, space, and the laws of physics won't get in the way of him being on hand with exactly the items and services his master requires or desires precisely when they're wanted.

The cosmic butler hands you the exact drink you want the moment you start to consider wanting it, and it's what you wanted even if you weren't sure what you wanted. He is there, holding the door as you approach, and just has pulled the car up and is holding THAT door by the time you walk down the walkway to it. The ultimate batman, he has your clothes laid out and ready for exactly the occasion you need. He can offer you exactly the golf club or hunting rifle or high explosive grenade launcher you want at exactly the right time; loaded, oiled, and ready to use.

The cosmic butler has impeccable small talk, advice on all the important people in any event or gathering, and is never ruffled. He is always just finishing any menial task necessary just as you happen to enter a room, and looks dignified while doing it.

And, if asked how he did it, his usual reply is something along the lines of, "I couldn't allow [insert crippling impossibility here] to inconvenience you, Sir. It would be unprofessional."

Character agency is critical in fiction. Lack of character agency (or potential agency if the character is one who refuses to act) is a sign that I'm not going to care much for a story.

In an RPG, there's also the need for player agency, and the two are intrinsically interwoven.

I quite agree, especially with that last sentence.

But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot. It has a path and story and pre scripted events and a time table. If it does not have them things, then it's not a plot...it's just random stuff happening randomly. The plot is what has everything make sense.

Other posters have addressed this, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.

Plots are not railroads. Railroads aren't even always plots (but more railroads are plots than plots are railroads).

Railroads are linear; the PCs have no (or very limited) agency, following a prescribed path from beginning to end. If they have choices, they're "pick which branch of this path you'll take" choices, not "how do you solve this problem?" choices.

To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''. It does not matter if the DM has an ''evil railroad plot'' or they are just ''impossibly false improvising'', it's the same thing.

Like start with the basic plot of ''the PC's are going into the evlen woods to find a lost magic item'' (and yes, we are saying the ''sandboxy'' players did eventually pick this plot with their own free will)

Now, the Railroad DM makes the setting and an adventure, including encounters, NPCs, creatures, interesting things and notes. And the DM connects everything together in logical ways. For example the DM makes an elven king and his brother the rebel bandit and some politics and backstory. The DM also makes a note that ''the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And dozens of other things.

Now Sandbox DM either has nothing prepared at all or has a random pile of mostly crunchy ''elf stuff''. So this DM ''randomly'' makes an elf king when the PC's enter the woods and lets say he also ''randomly makes the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And lets say this DM ''randomly'' makes the kings rebel brother too. Though, of course, this makes both games all most identical, except the railroad game has tons more detail.

The Sandbox can only be blank for a couple minutes, as once the DM starts making things you can't avoid railroad plots, unless the game is pointless and makes no sense. Like when the Pc's just destroy the woods as they are ''so super awesome'', the normal railroad game elf king would be upset and take action. Now the sandboxy elf king will ''react to the PCs' actions'', following the railroading plot the sandbox game is not meant to have...

So how is the Sandbox different?

The DM preparing encounters doesn't make it a railroad.

A railroad requires that the PCs be only allowed to go to this encounter first, that they must resolve that encounter in a particular way to get to the next encounter, which they must face in a particular way to get to the next, etc. etc.

What you've described here as a "railroad" is not one. It's a sandbox, assuming the DM has prepared his various encounters and NPCs such that they'll react organically to the PCs' choices.

The question to ask yourself is, "How many choices do the PCs have, and how meaningful are they?" A railroad will have only 1 meaningful "choice:" Pursue this in a precise way. A branching railroad will have several meaningful choices, but they'll be "multiple choice," and you can't pick anything off-menu. Picking a choice just sends you down one of several branches. (Most video game RPGs which offer choices to the PCs use this technique, and have spiderwebs of myriad choices, some of which re-cross and some of which branch off forever. And some RPGs have a pseudo-sandbox of mini-railroads, which is what you're thinking of, most likely, when you say that the railroad starts when a plot is picked.)

A sandbox is a "fill in the blank" question as opposed to a railroad's "multiple choice" question. (A false sandbox will be a railroad where the "blank" only has one right answer, and the players must guess it. A true sandbox has no 'wrong' answer, in that the world will react organically to anything they do, and the 'rightness' of the answer only varies based on how well it leads the PCs towards their goals.)




So I think the fundamental problem is that you, Darth_Ultron, have a false definition of both "sandbox" and "railroad."

Which is what I keep trying to make a point of. Every time you characterize a sandbox as "random," you're missing the point of the term entirely. And, moreover, you're mischaracterizing railroads when you try to say that any preparation at all leads to one.

It's only a railroad if the PCs' choices are planned for them. It's a sandbox if the PCs can do anything, and the encounters are prepared such that they can react to whatever the PCs are doing.

[thirdkingdom]

Other posters have addressed this, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.

Plots are not railroads. Railroads aren't even always plots (but more railroads are plots than plots are railroads).

Railroads are linear; the PCs have no (or very limited) agency, following a prescribed path from beginning to end. If they have choices, they're "pick which branch of this path you'll take" choices, not "how do you solve this problem?" choices.

The DM preparing encounters doesn't make it a railroad.

A railroad requires that the PCs be only allowed to go to this encounter first, that they must resolve that encounter in a particular way to get to the next encounter, which they must face in a particular way to get to the next, etc. etc.

What you've described here as a "railroad" is not one. It's a sandbox, assuming the DM has prepared his various encounters and NPCs such that they'll react organically to the PCs' choices.

The question to ask yourself is, "How many choices do the PCs have, and how meaningful are they?" A railroad will have only 1 meaningful "choice:" Pursue this in a precise way. A branching railroad will have several meaningful choices, but they'll be "multiple choice," and you can't pick anything off-menu. Picking a choice just sends you down one of several branches. (Most video game RPGs which offer choices to the PCs use this technique, and have spiderwebs of myriad choices, some of which re-cross and some of which branch off forever. And some RPGs have a pseudo-sandbox of mini-railroads, which is what you're thinking of, most likely, when you say that the railroad starts when a plot is picked.)

A sandbox is a "fill in the blank" question as opposed to a railroad's "multiple choice" question. (A false sandbox will be a railroad where the "blank" only has one right answer, and the players must guess it. A true sandbox has no 'wrong' answer, in that the world will react organically to anything they do, and the 'rightness' of the answer only varies based on how well it leads the PCs towards their goals.)




So I think the fundamental problem is that you, Darth_Ultron, have a false definition of both "sandbox" and "railroad."

Which is what I keep trying to make a point of. Every time you characterize a sandbox as "random," you're missing the point of the term entirely. And, moreover, you're mischaracterizing railroads when you try to say that any preparation at all leads to one.

It's only a railroad if the PCs' choices are planned for them. It's a sandbox if the PCs can do anything, and the encounters are prepared such that they can react to whatever the PCs are doing.

Specifically, regarding a railroad, that single choice will happen whatever the players choose to do: the button will get pushed, the bad guy will escape and live to fight another day, the kidnapped prince will be killed before he can be rescued, etc.

[kyoryu]

So I think the fundamental problem is that you, Darth_Ultron, have a false definition of both "sandbox" and "railroad."

No, the problem is he doesn't like people telling him that they don't like railroads, since that's how he likes to run games, so he's created false definitions of both to "prove" that people actually *do* like railroads and so their objects are factually incorrect.

[Airk]

This thread contains a whole lot of bad ideas, but the fundamental idea of the OP is reasonably sound. Though honestly, it's not "player led" vs "GM led" binary, but rather a scale.

The suggestion that all games eventually become GM lead because the GM creates the "plot" is incorrect, however. The way this is avoided is to give the players creative input. This can done either via the PbtA "questions" method, the Burning Wheel Beliefs method (If a player creates a belief that says "For the good of the Kingdom, I must overthrown my brother, the Duke." then by definition, there is a Kingdom, a Duke who is that character's brother, and the game is going to be about overthrowing him.) various sorts of metacurrency methods, or whatever. The actual approach is less relevant than the fact that the players have input beyond saying "My characters want to do <thing>"

[Darth Ultron]

An adventure with a "plot" is not by definition a railroad, nor is a linear adventure (such as the many Pathfinder APs); the problem comes into being when the DM has already determined how the players must proceed *and* forces that outcome to occur, regardless of what they actually do.

Now see this is what I just outright call a jerk DM. The jerk DM that writes a novel, has the players experience it, but they are little more then ''readers'' and nothing they do matters. But I would not just toss the ''jerk Dm'' under the wide umbrella of ''it's a railroad and all railroads are bad''.

Plots are not railroads. Railroads aren't even always plots (but more railroads are plots than plots are railroads).

Railroads are linear; the PCs have no (or very limited) agency, following a prescribed path from beginning to end. If they have choices, they're "pick which branch of this path you'll take" choices, not "how do you solve this problem?" choices.

Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.

I think your getting the ''general fiction'' type plot and railroading confused with the ''RPG'' type plot and railroading. In general fiction all the characters follow the plot like they are conductors on a zombie train, but that is nothing like an RPG.

The ''choose your own adventure '' is half the point of most RPGs, but it is still ''choose from the path''. Sure a player can ''do anything''......''on the path''.

Railroading, in an RPG, really just comes down to fooling the players or when the players choose to fool themselves. And railroading is only a problem when the players or DM is a jerk.

It's like take the most basic dragon slaying adventure. So the DM puts some swords of dragon slaying in a crypt from some long dead dragonslayers. So is this a railroad? A jerk player would say so as they feel ''forced'' to go to the crypt. Though most players would say it's just ''common sense'' and not be jerks. But even in the hardcore railroad, it's not like the DM is taking control of the characters and forcing them to go to the crypt first. The players are free to not go to the crypt, though that is really a dumb move most of the time.

A railroad requires that the PCs be only allowed to go to this encounter first, that they must resolve that encounter in a particular way to get to the next encounter, which they must face in a particular way to get to the next, etc. etc.

Other then the jerk DMs, who everyone agrees are bad...where else do you see this type a railroad? I've read at least a hundred adventures, and just about all of them are filled with ''what if'' boxes and ''depending on how the story unfolds''. Run five games where five groups go through the same adventure and each one will have a different story at the end.

A sandbox is a "fill in the blank" question as opposed to a railroad's "multiple choice" question.

But the ''fill in the blank'' is not unique to sandboxes.... A railroad has them too. What type of non jerk DM railroad does not have ''endless choices''? A fundamental element most RPGs is a player can ''try'' anything. And this is where you get the jerk players that see railroads everywhere:

The players want to go south to the ''Land of Shapesand'' and the DM says ''up ahead is a wide river and a wooden bridge across it. And the players, rightly so, think a monster might be guarding the bridge. The jerk player will immediately cry railroad as they feel ''forced'' to encounter the bridge monster. But any player with a brain cell of common sense will say ''well, it makes sense for a monster to guard a spot they know travelers will pass'', and of course it is. But in any RPG the players do have the ''fill in the blank'' of they can try to cross the river, or fly over it, or build their own bridge or whatever. The player ways might not succeed, and if the DM just ''has them all fail'' he is a jerk, but no normal (non-jerk) game forces the players to ''have the characters only take the bridge''.

[Friv]

Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.

Why do you think that?

The ''choose your own adventure '' is half the point of most RPGs, but it is still ''choose from the path''. Sure a player can ''do anything''......''on the path''.

And if they do something off the path?

[Segev]

You're really trying to define "railroad" to be broader than it is, Darth_Ultron.

And you're trying to define "sandbox" as "random," which... is at least as inaccurate.


Are you truly incapable of parsing what I and others have been writing? Because at this point you're not responding to what we're writing; you're redefining things and ignoring what we're saying in favor of what you want to keep insisting.



A railroad is mostly defined by whether there is a sequence of events which the players must play through.

A sandbox is mostly defined by how much freedom the players have to approach it from any angle.


The "dragonslaying adventure" is only a railroad if the PCs have to go on it, HAVE to follow the specific trail of breadcrumbs to get there, HAVE to approach it in the prescribed manner the DM predicted they would, etc.


Most games I've run, for the record, have had more railroad than sandbox to them. I've had a plot to unveil, and only the one major story going on. I've even had specific reveals that the party had to come across to advance things. I am not saying "all railroads are bad." But if I had run it more as a sandbox, it wouldn't have mattered if the PCs ever figured out the "reveals" or pursued the plot-relevant clues to the plot-relevant events; however they approached whatever problems they chose to solve would have been fine.

A sandbox would instead have had all the NPCs in place with an idea of how things would go if the PCs never showed up. Rather than having plot notes in place for what I expect the PCs to try to do, and where they are likely to bring about plot events, I'd just have encounters, and whatever the PCs did would cause the encounters to alter in the future as "what happens without the PCs" changes to "what happens now that the PCs have interfered in the manner they did."


The problem is that you keep insisting that sandboxes are random. They're not. Sandboxes simply lack pre-defined roles for the PCs. The PCs find something they like and get involved. This CAN step into a more railroad structure at this point. The plot they're involved in was waiting for their attention, and they step into the roles the DM had planned for them, making the "choose your own adventure" choices as they go.

But it can also remain a sandbox. The DM's plans tell him what the motives of the characters involved are, and what environmental concerns are out there (from literal weather and environment to other events which happen due to forces of nature or some outside factor). He has enough information about all the NPCs and creatures and the setting in general to react to what the PCs do. (Note that this level of improv is required of railroads, too, unless it's the kind you, Darth_Ultron, term a "Jerk DM" railroad where everything is 100% scripted.)

While the GM may have some notes guiding what he thinks likely outcomes of various forms of interference are, he isn't guiding towards any of them, and will react to things not going according to any of those plans by having the situation react organically.

But again: the difference here is that the GM didn't create holes in his cast which the PCs are to fill, if he's running a sandbox. If he's running a railroad (of any degree), he did. A railroad has a storyline which assumes the PCs will pursue particular actions.

A sandbox has a set of circumstances which will unfold in certain ways with various contingencies, but which the PCs don't have a pre-set role, and there's no assumption that the PCs will push any of them in specific directions to advance "the plot." Instead, the plot is an emergent property of the PCs' interactions with the circumstances of the encounters they choose to pursue.

There's no "fooling" the players involved. It's just a different sort of planning.





Another way to look at it is incremental plotting. The DM only ever has detailed designs for the start of the game. The "temporary" sandbox Darth_Ultron likes to say will become a railroad as soon as the PCs pick a plot hook.

But when they pick that plot hook, the DM only has the situation at the "beginning" of the "plot" for that storyline set up. He lets the PCs interact with it however they like. At the point where it "would" become a railroad, he doesn't have specific plans...and his next step in planning is to lay out the detailed situation-as-it-is, as if they'd just started a "new" adventure with "new" hooks.


In essence, it's sandboxes with hooks all the way down. Each time a hook is bitten, they explore that situation, alter it by their choices, and have a number of possible hooks to pursue further. Pick a hook, and then that one becomes their new sandbox. At some point, as well, in most sandboxes, proactive PCs will start making their own hooks to pursue.

[Quertus]

The player, or the character?

If the character isn't on hand, and has no way of being aware... how would they be aware?

I was referencing the omniscient character, who (presumably) has a way to be omniscient.

Sorry I get sort of ranty about this sort of thing. This is all opinion anyway, but I majored in game design and I watch a lot of videos from game critics so I end up spending a lot of time pondering and eventually pontificating about these concepts.

Ah. Explains the surprising take on things. Please don't let me discourage you from "ranting" your take on things.

[Cluedrew]

A railroad is mostly defined by whether there is a sequence of events which the players must play through.

I did my definition of railroading a while back and one of its main features is that one player (usually GM) forces the others along a particular path. Force being an important word here, if everyone follows a pre-determined path because they want to its not a railroad. It only a railroad if it has rails.

Still I accept that not everyone uses the term like that. Many people include most linear adventures under that title and some others... OK Darth Ultron seems to include about everything under it. So I try to take that into account when I read posts. This has gotten rather meta.

Also the Cosmic Butler sounds completely awesome.

[ComradeBear]

Reminder, because this has apparently not been said enough:
Darth Ultron defines Railroading as "Playing any TRPG where the GM does more than roll on random tables and burble incoherently."

If it is NOT that, Darth Ultron labels that railroading.

He does not care what railroading actually is, how the rest of the people use the term, or what the term is supposed to convey. It conveys whatsoever thing he believes it to, and the rest of the world can stuff it.

Attempts to define it for him are useless. They have never worked.

Attempts to point out faulty logic are outright ignored, because he's not here to discuss. I don't know what he's here for, but it's not anything involving communicating by the same terms as we are.

Feel free to engage him if you really like to argue for the sake of it. If not, just let it fly right by. You're not going to change his mind anymore than you'll persuade the Nile to flow the other way.

[2D8HP]

defines Railroading as "Playing any TRPG where the GM does more than roll on random tables and burble incoherently."

Just wanted to point out that "1970's rules DnD had lots of random tables, including the infamous


From the 1979 Dungeons Master's Guide


(Gygax definitely made me check the dictionary and grow my vocabulary).

Improv was definitely part of the game then, and random tables can be an asset.
Don't dog them!
(please?)

[Max_Killjoy]

Wasn't the table expanded in a subsequent edition to be 1d100 adjectives and 1d100 nouns?