That's asking a lot of a GM and that's why a lot of GMs fail - trying to build an entire open world without any help from anyone else playing the game with them. All in the conceit that to do otherwise would ruin the surprise or break the immersion.
The majority of the games I've played in, and most of the games I've run, have a format that's more like "Here's a goal that's more complex than going to a location and killing a monster/retrieving an object, now figure out how to do it." Then the players pursue whatever comes into their heads, and the GM watches out for opportunities to drop in any helpful information, assistance, etc that they've already thought of or improvise anything useful that they think of on the way. It's sort of like a mystery-solving or heist-planning mindset applied to less mysterious tasks like "invade this bad guy's hideout" or "escort this person to their destination".
Yeah, my group could be considered "beer and pretzels" they love a defined conflict / goal, and planning out how to go about it with near total freedom. Tossing them into a megadungeon without much beside "get loot" left them pretty ambivalent.
When I'm a player I want a linear narrative story where my choices affect the outcome of it. The DM sets conflicts and has a good idea on what those conflicts are. This will create different paths based on the decisions that we (The party) made but will ultimately lead up to the climax that we created together with the DM. A good idea as a DM is generally asking what the party will want to do next session. I typically throw out a poll of rumors or events that pique their interest in what's happening in town and they decide they want to tackle it next session together.
I run my games like a cruise ship, you know where it's going but you have freedom to move around the ship, party, get into trouble and all sorts of wackyness but the ship keeps moving. you can see sites at each destination and do things other people don't but at some point you gotta hop back on the ship.I would say the major arc in my games is a railroad but each port/destination is it's own minisandbox.
I find this particular instance very interesting, because it sounds like we're talking about a video game. In video games you have a linear story whether it's a open world or not there is always a completion to the game. In sandboxes to me, there is no set completion to a game. I like the open world idea because yes there is an overarching thing happening, the players can and cannot do it if they wish. To me railroading has always meant you cannot deviate from my plan whether you do what I want you to do or not there is nothing else but what I have created, as a gym. Adventure paths tend to lean towards railroading because they don't give you any external things to play with, and I think a lot of people, especially those I meet now, only know how to GM using an adventure path and so everybody thinks that's how you're supposed to do it. I have literally been railroaded, where the GM was like no your character does this! But being a GM that does sandboxes where my players are like there's a story we're going to go over here, and I deal with it. Sometimes the story comes to them because if they ignore something that will just show up on their doorstep. They are adventures they are drawing a lot of attention to themselves the big dads are going to come visit and see if they're a problem.
Ty as always Daniel. I’ve realised about myself that I am tempted to railroad because I want to protect the PCs. Solution: rely on reaction tables. If monsters don’t always attack, then I can relax about the PCs making choices
This is what happens when players see the terrible examples of play on YT. The GM is used to moving character with their narration (this is bad, GM's are supposed to only narrate NPC and environmental detail) The players are not saying where they are going... as they are used to the GM moving them on their behalf. So because of the above being the norm in 99% of RP, the players rely on the GM to move them around and describe their actions for them... Players therefore are just talking heads and die rollers. I've been trying to de-program myself so I don't move or act on behalf of my players. (its a habit that can be hard to break). My players say where they are moving and what action they are doin or what their character says each turn/round. Once the players get into that habit, they realize THEY are in full control of their character, and they become pro-active in the game. Thank you for bringing this up.
Interesting, I don’t watch many actual plays, but I can see what you are saying, D&D is a game we often learn by watching others play and habits can be learned that way for sure
First railroad vs. sandbox breakdown: Are players setting the goal? Second Breakdown: Are players free to attempt different strategies to achieve the goal? Third Breakdown: Are players free to decide individual actions/tactics to achieve the goal? Almost everyone lets players choose their actions/tactics, even in heavily railroaded campaigns. And lots of sandbox games may have a pre-defined goal, even if it's just "get treasure". I think it's the second question that largely determines for me if the game feels like a sandbox or a railroad.
I tend to do the following: I present a linear adventure and softly real road my players into it. But if they do otherwise or show interest in something else I NEVER take away their agency. I would only do so if what they do totally kills the fun for me. If I dont give my players a direction at the beginning, its like Daniel said: they are LOST. Greetings from a German GM o7
Great points. I often use the tactic of predicting what my players will be engaged by to create more bespoke feeling content within the sandbox. I've heard the term "funnel-shaped sandbox" used to describe scenarios that culminate in a particular "moment" or "beat" that can be drastically different (or happen outside the players' notice entirely) depending on how the players interact with the situation. Although, I think "funnel" means something different in the OSR lexicon-something very deadly, IIRC. Anyway, kind of thing has worked for me to create dramatic moments within a sandbox and keep things interesting and engaging for my players.
I’ve found players often make their own funnel as they pursue something that interests them - they d tend to get more focused as the campaign moves on vs hitting every “side quest”
I've tried narrative-heavy campaigns and found the players tend to sit back and become more passive in the experience and it's more work to nudge them in the right direction while not forcing them that way. I've recently started building a sandbox-style campaign where the plan is to have a handful of adventure opportunities prepared when we start that i can drop hints about to the party and they then have something to go after to start with. Then, as they play, I'll create more opportunities and the sandbox will expand outward. That way, they have the option to do whatever they can think of, but still have specific locations and adventures to go on if they want to.
What it comes down to is how everything blends together, because any campaign that's only one thing is going to be terrible. So you've got a campaign mode where the players get to wander the area you've created however they want, encountering the various adventure hooks you've put together and deciding which on they want to go after. But once they've picked a hook, they've locked into a specific end goal, and as you switch over to adventure mode you'll dial back most of the extemporaneous details and just focus on the one goal with it's much more limited number of approaches and options, which you can probably put a bit more thought and effort into.
I believe it is up to the players to lock in, not the Referee- all the choices don’t stop, because if they did then the locked in goal has no consequences
"Most players want options and direction" I think you're absolutely right. I think it's really hard for players to start looking for adventures in an open "do whatever" sandbox, but if provided with just enough of a general goal to start exploring the world, knowing that any path could be taken, leading to more, and that they can "drop" their first direction/goal if they wish; I think they'll sandbox themselves eventually if it makes sense. It's all about conversation too, we need to see how both GM and players can get what they're looking for in this particular game/sandbox.
What I found is that players don't mind being railroaded as long as they get to help build the railroad with their own input. In other words, you have five other potential storytellers at your table. Let them help you and then that strictly defined series of situations that looks like a railroad (and maybe is a railroad) is still a lot of fun for everyone, and much simpler to prepare for on the part of the GM.
This is absolutely true, I've experienced this myself. I designed a sandbox world but knowing that players often don't know what to do in a world when they start and they often don't care about the world yet, especially if they're new, I know I need to give them a push by plopping something right in front of them to do which also gets them invested in the world. Once they're done with that they can be more free to interact with the world as they please. I have some linear adventures around them for them to do if they want and they're always free to break off from that and do anything else. The hard part I think is making sure they're aware that they are free to deviate as I worry that they will sometimes grab a plot hook and just keep going to see the end even if they're no longer interested. I envy that your players acknowledged that you don't care what they do, that is what I aspire to hear some day. My current players only broke from what I had planned after the first dungeon, then they started following the quests inspired by their own character motivations and have yet to stop doing those aside from one player actively avoiding his.
I agree with this completely. How much nudging players want or will tolerate varies, but I have had more players complain about lack of direction than railroading. In my experience, good DMs always have a flashing sign up saying, “This way lies adventure” (or even more than one such sign), but if the players choose to ignore those signs, he improvises instead of trying to stop them. There should be consequences, of course; Sauron will indeed conquer Gondor and start marching on Rohan if the Ring isn’t destroyed. But that’s good; it shows the players that their choices do indeed make a difference.
This video resonates with me very strongly. Create a world that gives players lots of options. Provide lots of hooks for things that they can do and get 'em started in the world with something that is pretty obvious and linear. I'm putting together a campaign setting and I'm thinking of using a fairly constrained opening set of scenes to establish the characters in the setting and set up some hooks, almost most like playing a video game cut scene or the intro to Skyrim. But my plan would be to clearly explain to the players what that initial half hour is going to be like so that they aren't surprised or disappointed about the lack of choice right at the beginning, during the setup period.
Good point at the end - having a conversation with the players about this type of thing is key to them understanding that the entire campaign will not be run that way.
Thoughtful video Daniel. I strive to run open sandbox worlds, but sometimes a couple of my players do need a little more guidance. It becomes a fine line of me trying to balance not dropping things on them vs not having them feel so lost with the lack of direction of things.
I think this is why I wouldn’t call my table’s game a sandbox; maybe it’s semi-linear, because the players are choosing what things to focus on, but I’m still setting up the overarching problems they’re encountering, and plot threads they’re following. I think that’s preferable for us, because we want to see a story progress over the course of a year or whatever, even if the path we take to get there isn’t what I as the DM expected it to look like. Their main goal right now is to crash a wedding in the feywild to save a friend, after which they’ll follow some other threads or start a very-adapted version of Lost Mine of Phandelver’s plot. But they haven’t even made it to the feywild yet, because I started dropping hints about the Redbrands, an antagonist in that story, being in a nearby town. They ended up there and are plotting a rebellion against their occupation. Not the direction I expected, but still related to the overarching story track we’re following. I think that’s really cool, and a different experience from a proper sandbox, more appropriate for us.
This is such a great video. As you say the key problem with sandbox adventures can be the lack of direction...especially at the start of the campaign. Starting the players in a point of conflict where they're in danger and have to act is one of my favorites. Then having that immediately lead to a possible quest or be the start of a quest. I talk with new players before the session to make sure they're good with that kind of start. I might have them come across the merchant while he's being robbed for example. If the merchant was being robbed by goblin bandits then after a fight the merchant might tell them the goblins are being led by a goblin king who has amassed wealth that he's using to hire more goblins to pillage and steal in the area and the mayor of the local town is offering a huge reward for the head of the goblin king etc. etc. How would I choose the bandits being goblins and the villain being a goblin king? Character backstory. A couple of the characters might have a history with goblins. One might have had his family slain by goblins, another's mother was robbed by goblins on the way to the markets. If their backstory is different the bandits and the villain would be different. If the players had a necromancer kill their family then the merchant might be holed up on the top of his wagon trying to escape zombies. I think in terms of "quest", "villain" and "minions". I have a random quest generator I use (so I don't care which quests the players choose to take up) and I tweak the villain and minions to the players' backstories. I might tweak the quest too. As a campaign progresses at the end of each session, if a quest finished that session, I ask players what kind of thing they'd like to do next. They know I'm going to drop them in the middle of something the next session based on what they tell me they want to do. So they start already in the next adventure, in danger, having to act immediately. This approach suits shorter sessions where you have less time and it can also suit West Marches style sessions where the players keep changing session to session because it's always exciting, dangerous and fast paced. You may think through keeping each quest or part of a quest down to one session in that situation. Random quest generation works great solo or with just 2 players as well. Just roll up a random quest and tweak it based on your characters' stories so far.
@@BanditsKeep Great question! Yes they do. Often the villain will escape or the characters will find out he's a minion for a much more dangerous villain or faction so if they choose to pursue it that can be part of a much larger adventure. Also I have random tables for "machinations" in the main cities the characters frequent (things that happen that the characters may or may not influence that show that the world is moving around them). At some point characters can't avoid the machinations any more (the city is under siege, at war, food has run out, they're accused of being traitors, the army or navy tries to forcibly recruit them etc.). The key is that I'm not attached to what happens or who the characters pick a fight with. I just roll things up and use some imagination to connect the threads together in a way that makes sense. What happens in the larger world is a sandbox for me too which makes it fun.
I think that's where I screwed up my first true sandbox, I was not actively dropping enough questline hooks in a way that gave them real things to latch onto
14:04 "the logical outcome" I feel like it's a big thing when it comes to open world games, and it creates hooks for more adventures. Last game I played my players decided to investigate a robbery and some of them decided to hop from roof to roof to follow some trails, the town militia stopped them (because why would sketchy outsiders be running on the roof?), to summarize it all they defied the guard to the point of being arrested and nearly escaping the gallows. right now they have to deal on how to free half the party from jail, and get on the militia's good side.
One month we drove our DM crazy. He had an adventure that he planned to run but one of the players couldn't make it the first weekend. So we followed up on some rumors and off our characters went. The next weekend we had our characters off on the rumor hunt and the missing character from last week was back at the town miles away with no clue where we had gotten off to because somebody forgot to leave him a note. So the next weekend we finished our rumor quest and headed back to town only to find out that the character left behind started something that would take him a couple of weeks to finish. I'm not sure what it was but just another delay. So the next weekend we are supposed to start the adventure but it just didn't mesh up with all the other things that we were sorting out. Our poor DM was getting a little upset with all our questions and dividing treasure, identifying magic items, etc. At least we did start the adventure the next weekend. Sometimes you just can't let the group get sidetracked by shiny things off in the distance.
@BanditsKeep we all had fun, it just drove the DM crazy trying to get his adventure started. We players seem to get sidetracked so easily. Oh look, shiny!
Ah the age old debate and conversation around railroading. I enjoyed your summation and thoughts on it. I always setup using the "node approach," which I guess is simply a flowchart. Essentially its a plot line with branching threads based on what choices the players make. There is always at least two choices and once the players choose one path, the other is gone forever (to be recycled for another adventure/campaign maybe). Outside of that I tend to lean toward your approach. I build a contained sandbox and have encounter charts on hand to roll on if the players decide to do something I didn't plan.
Excellent video. This is pretty much exactly what I try to do in a game but circumstances always seem to put up barriers. If you do this right, it has the potential to continue indefinitely.
I think framing is so important. The DM needs to be honest with the players and tell them what is the point of the game vs. what they have choice to do or not do. If you say "the point of the game is that you all are getting shipwrecked on a desert island and then you'll need to somehow survive and thrive" that's cool. But if you keep that a secret and then on the first session you force us all to go on a boat ride and then ignore any attempts we have to avoid a storm or skillfully sail back, and you force us to get shipwrecked, then it's a railroad. The same thing happened either way, but it kind of comes down to the DM just being honest about what is a choice and what isn't a choice.
I think you are spot on about your definitions. I think part of the problem is definitions. An example of a true railroad are the 1e Dragonlance adventurers - you don’t even get to pick your characters!
To me, a railroad is not only where the DM forces a specific adventure, but where they force outcomes to situations. Basically, the DM as frustrated novelist. They came up with this great movie scene in their head, and now they want you to basically act it out. Of course, they thought you would enjoy it, too, but when you frustrate their vision, they react by restricting your choices. I think it's acceptable to occasionally remove player agency, within limits. You just have to be very sparing and strategic about it. For instance, you could have an adventure which starts with the PCs suddenly at the _end_ of a dungeon with no idea how they got there, because someone read a cursed scroll that induced amnesia. And now they have to find their way out. I wouldn't do that very often, but it could be a fun experiment. But once you set the scene, player agency reigns.
Some adventures are also written with certain scenes in mind and seemingly with the expectation that they must happen. This can make DMs think "oh, this is how adventures are written, so I should be doing that too!"
I think if my players could look 'behind the screen' and see my notes they'd accuse me of railroading. Except that the railroads are all things they have decided upon or are outcomes to choices they've already made. Their desires and decisions dictate how I create direction and narrative moving forward. There are always options and there's limitless room for me to improv things but usually they follow a path or series of paths that are semi-predetermined. They choose the road, I just make sure it's an interesting walk. If keeping things engaging means forcing certain outcomes in the background and without their knowledge, so be it. I have yet to run into a player that's seen through the veil.
Great video, i like getting my players to take charge and make their own way within the setting and campaign. However i do think you have alot of solid points and we all should take a few ideas from the other side. I do plan to start new players in a situation from the start to give them some direction and immediate situational clear paths. Aftewards its a west marches but i do think it will be wise to leave a job board ( crude stone monolith meeting place) with people offering jobs, to give some options if pcs are stuck on where they want to go
Despite a good deal of advice saying to not railroad, I've found a fair amount of players want just that. It's a trap. If you sandbox fully, you might find that player that gets lost. But if you railroad them, then they'll reject it simply because of its premise. A balanced use is in generally in order. On a side note, 1 of the best hooks I found was in the 1E DMs Guide where under certain instances, Treasure Maps are found instead of Treasure.
the sandbox campaigns one of the DMs around our table likes to set has just led to a lot of confusion on where to go and what we are supposed to do. lack of direction in a sandbox if its a campaign and there is a set goal but we have no idea how to achive it is very frustrating.
There's a question of scope when defining a railroad. If I say "the goal of this campaign is to go to the Castle and Kill the Vampire within it" - I don't think that's a railroad if i'm honest with that goal up front and if the castle has multiple entrances many different levels with lots of rooms that are connected in different ways, multiple factions that could turn into enemies or allies against the vampire, etc. Sandboxes always have boarders, the question is just "how wide are those boarders?" We could do the same quest but there's only 1 way in and only 1 method to get it and each room only leads to 1 other room, etc so the challenges are pre-set and must be overcome in the "correct" order, etc. That would now be a railroad.
Sandbox: Players choose *what* to do and *how* to do it. Typical adventure: Players do *what* a prepared adventure is about but have complete freedom about *how* to do it. Offensive railroad: Players don't choose *what* and they don't get to choose *how* either.
I agree with you on player agency, but choice implies options to choose from, and that is then in my opinion more of a non-linear adventure (the kind of game I prefer to run, where I have deliberate dilemmas based on the theme I am going for). In a sandbox I would say the proper word would be problems, and thus the complete liberty to tackle those however one sees fit, which goes much further than a simple choice. But both are up to the player agency, and my approach is that I hope that the players care about the theme around which the fiction revolves. And I tell them outright before the game what theme I would like to explore, so that the players can make their characters who have some connection to that theme and thus can also explore the theme on their terms.
@@BanditsKeep no, not within the campaign. Bur I prefer to run shorter campaigns anyway, since the open ended stuff is just as meaningless as Sandbox gaming. The characters hopefully manage to get an arc along the theme, just like in every other media and then we do a different champaign, with a new theme and new characters.
Daniel, the best game that elegantly avoids railroading and gets the most player buy in is Burning Wheel. Session zero - players and GM talk about what they want to play. What is the situation. Then they right Beliefs (goals) about the situation, personal ambitions, inter party desires, and get rewarded for initiating scenes that touch these Beliefs. You have to try it.
I don't necessarily have a problem with railroading. I also don't think railroading and sandboxing are mutually exclusive. Probably not a lot of overlap, though. A lot of the style of play depends on the players. Some don't want to create the story, they want to be part of the story. Perfectly fair. Of course, some players are the opposite. I suppose my personal philosophy would be to use a kind of railroading. Put the characters in a train station, and let them choose what train they want to get on. They can ride that train for as long as they want, and get off when it suits them. Of course, the characters may have limited choices, especially if they've jumped off the train while it's moving. It will be awfully difficult to find another way to their original destination if they got off the train. Not impossible, but tough. I guess what I mean is that there are consequences to getting off the train. Not necessarily bad, of course. Thanks for the video, Daniel.
_"Some don't want to create the story, they want to be part of the story."_ I file this under "players don't really know what they want". Hold on, hear me out. I mean the players have never _seen_ what a good sandbox can be like. They may express discomfort when presented with "you can do anything", may wander aimlessly, and may ultimately even ask the GM to tell them what they are supposed to do -- but that is a result of not realizing what a sandbox can be like, and the GM not knowing how to present the sandbox in an engaging way. The players may also have been burned in the past by "not doing what the GM wanted". As a first step, the GM needs to help the players create motivations for the characters (session 0 stuff), and provide external motivations (survival and money[start them broke] are always good).
The goal is to enjoy your free time playing a game. I would say it needs to be entertaining regardless of the label one try’s to give to their DMing abilities. Player agency over what? A notion they have a choice because your DM has three railroad options and not just one? I think the labels I would use are good DM or bad DM. What makes a bad DM? If they are boring and no entertainment value. I don’t know if it matters if they are sandboxing boredom or railroading it. That being said, Daniel sounds like a good GM and I agree with the majority of what he says and I listen to his channel for inspiration. But this topic sounds like right fighting something that isn’t important. Why do I say that? Well I will give an example. I show up for my weekly D&D game. The DM prepared a one shot for the evening or an adventure out of an old dungeon magazine. A complete railroad as some people like to label it. After the game all that matters was if everyone had a good time. Call it a linear adventure if it helps you sleep at night. This topic and the people using these terms come across like gamer snobs. Well maybe your so called sandbox otherwise known as nothing planned, no goals, no direction and most likely boring isn’t all that you thinks it’s cracked up to be. I don’t get the impression Daniel really plays a so called sandbox.
Thanks for your input. I agree, enjoyment of the group is my goal, as both player and referee. Not sure why you think I don’t run a sandbox, or why you feel that means no prep, but that is a great topic to discuss. Thanks!
@@BanditsKeep I can’t claim you do or don’t run a sand box. I was getting at the terms (labels) are meaningless at least to me. If a DM creates a dungeon and all the traps and encounters while providing the hook to go to the dungeon. Is that railroading? If that DM’s players say they want to play in a forest instead is that now a sandbox?
I find it difficult as player and particularly as a dm to play/run a 'pure' sandbox games. Too many choises and as dm too much to prepare, which I have to because I lack improvising skills. So, what I am trying to do to avoid 'pure' railroading is to find a story I am sure some of my players love; OR what I have lately trying is to ask my players what they want to do in my campaign based on the overall story. I have created some super villains and plothooks, they can chose, but I always ask if they want to do something different. It is new and difficult for them to chose, because they played mostly that what the dm has prepared for them. In addition, they get downtime to build a stronghold, creating buisness etc., create magic items etc., but there is not much comming from them either. However, I don't give up and try different angles to motivate them to make decisions. I listen to a lot of your videos lately to get more ideas of how to encourage my players to do that.
A lot of people don't get this small fact. Running a specific scenario to defeat a BBEG or find a macguffin isn't a railroad... That's an objective. That's The Game. A railroad is telling a player that their great ideas won't work because the DM wants them to do it a different way. Players figure out a great and novel plan to break into the BBEG's keep without being seen? The DM actively doesn't want that. The DM doesn't care what the dice read. The player characters are seen anyway and a huge battle ensues because that's what the DM wants. That's a railroad. Your choices don't matter. That isn't a part of the objective. That isn't a part of the game. That's a DM taking player choices in the moment away and puppeteering the outcome because they want things to happen "their way".
Not a railroad, but at least a road. Your example. You enter a village what do you do? Uhhhhh Proprer example. You enter the village and stop at the tavern to get an idea whats going on. You find out the most exciting rumor is that the swamp lizardmen have gotten more aggressive due to some mystic artifact they recently put in their swamp temple. Unfortunatly no one has been ale to look into it as the local law is hamstring by its leader going missing and a series of robberies in town. This has led to the local goblins commiting more raids on he local farmers than usual. You also find leads on a couple of places you can spend the night. What do you do?
Try this link - it is an amazon affiliate "one link" that should send you to the product in your country - amzn.to/3S5FPCD - they are available in Germany, France, UK for sure
Lol sorry Daniel. I dunno an easy way to call in for monsters and treasure but just wanted to let you know it’s wild to hear the 5e community mindset to try and justify lying to players and saying the Old School referee who is trying to be fair and impartial is “fudging” by not rolling on trivial time wasting situations. I don’t know how you keep your cool sometimes lol. Love the show. I like the heated debates. Wish we had a Bandits Hex cast too though to get some Todd agreement vibes to ying and Yang the sentiments :). I’m with you all the way. No screens for me, no fudge. Telegraph, telegraph, telegraph, let the dice fall. Great things come of it.
I have one player that I think wants to be railroaded. He'll ask me between sessions if they're getting near the end of the campaign. The times I've played with him as a DM I felt railroaded, so I'm guessing this is either his preference or the only way he knows.
Redheads, my players care about redheads. Granted the two Irish brothers in the group are redheads but we’re talking about the feminine persuasion. My experience is tumultuous but I love them too. 😂 I run my games like yours. I find quest givers come in various forms. Though I could share many, the one I am writing for our next session is not so much a “quest giver” but an invitation for coffee from the “Bond Villain”! As with all initial direct confrontations with them, it’s really a fact finding mission of how much Bond knows. Teasers that propel the narrative forward and building tension between them. Let’s see where it goes! I’ll keep you informed!
Today’s session the players’ characters were so willing to help the “Big Bad Bond Villain” that they offered ideas and didn’t even seek negotiating “What’s in it for me” terms! The villain steered them away from their objectives by replacing them with a far greater threat to him, which he painted in such a way that it would threaten everyone! This took some deep consideration as to whether the villain was actually willing to lose good lieutenants to rid himself of these mercenaries (the party) who, up to this point, had been able to best his plans effortlessly. So, if you can’t beat them, ask them to join you! Give them what they want! Give them an opportunity, an objective, that will allow them to prove their muscle! So now the villain has become their new quest giver! They have a new patron and he has new lieutenants! 😂 Mew ha hahaha!!!!
Possibly those players that want to be railroaded are used to play graphic adventure videogames such as those from LucasArts where you play discoverying what's correct to advance the game, as designed by the makers of the game. However, a sandbox has not a pre-designed story to discover by clicking on the correct items. It's more like actually "living" that situation and being able to do anything you can plausibly do. And that's beyond the scope of the narrow-minded players coming from videogames. Now, let's watch the whole video :)
@@BanditsKeepThe actual answer would have been: “The answer is yes for some players.” But that wasn’t as much fun to write. My players actually asked for a more linear adventure after my sandbox ended. They spent too much time deciding what to do and talking about things. And, of course, even if we play something more railroady, like a prewritten adventure module, they’re always free to do whatever they like. So it was kind of a troll answer, simply to point out that SOME players actually prefer less choice, something that surprised me to be honest 😂 Your channel is great by the way 👍👏😁
There's a Matt Chill (sp?) video where he describes the difference between a sandbox and a linear adventure in terms of The Hobbit vs. Lord of the Rings. Great minds think alike, I'm just not sure who told Matt )
Yeah, I've seen railroading defined as everything from a pre-conceived story and outcome that the DM wants the players to ennact, to any amount of structure or planning whatsoever. I prefer your far more nuanced definition!
"railroad vs sandbox" debates often overlook that fun comes from meaningful choices. players need both freedom and purpose. An infinite-choices-of-no-real-value sandbox has the same problem of meaninglessness as a no-choices-at-all railroad. "players want a railroad" is better put as "players want a purpose", not "players don't want choices". Players want freedom, but they also want to know what to do with it.
When I first considered the difference between Linear and Sandbox adventure styles, I genuinely couldn't see how anyone would ever want a linear adventure. To me, a linear adventure is just a terrible novel or movie. If you want a linear adventure, why in the world are you playing a tabletop RPG? However, when I began to actually run games, I was flabbergasted by the players. For some people, being rail-roaded is exactly what they want. They could not care less about exploration.
I used those terms a little differently, since I take actions having natural consequence in the world as something that should go without says. I usually say I create small sandboxes. Generally, I go for open-ended campaigns I make up as we go; they usually want to play whatever I prepared because it will be much more interesting than random encounters and what I can make up on the fly.
@@BanditsKeep Words have meanings. Linear v open world are terms used in video games, railroad v sandbox are typically used in ttrpgs. Different hobbies, same idea.
So basically, it's not railroading, if it's presented as something the PLAYERS want to do- not what the CHARACTERS should want to do. So let's just take rp out of the game. Let the PLAYERS go where they want, do what they want and say what they want. That's true sandbox player agency!
There are absolutely players who want a railroad. I have one group I play with who's approach to the game is very casual -- they just want to kick back, slay some orcs, get some loot, and not have to think too hard. If I try to get them to set goals or decide the direction of the game, they just get annoyed: "Dude, just tell us where the dungeon is." They do enjoy planning out their battle strategy, but any "agency" beyond that is simply of no interest. As a player, I'll admit I tend to prefer more direction rather than less. My experiences with "sandboxes" has not been great. Either the group can't agree on which direction to pursue, and wastes a lot of time arguing about it, or the DM is so coy and stingy with information that we can't even figure out what our options are (Yes, I have literally had DMs drop us into the middle of a town and say "Do what you want" with no further prompts or hooks). Maybe there are DMs out there who can make sandboxes that are engaging and delightful, but I'm not one of them, and I've personally never met one.
I have spoken in depth to a few players for whom their enjoyment as an audience member of the game's performance is more important to them than their control of that performance as a participant. These people are all pretty pro-illusionism
I want a living world to interact with. A world of simple setting where you just run from point A to B and is simply setting heavy gets pretty boring. Problem is players thinking the DM playing out consequences to their interaction with the world is some sort of railroading.
That doesn't seem to be totally true. A railroad means the players get to make no meaningful choices. In a linear adventure, players can make all kinds of choices that can change things, though the big bad reaimins the same.
@@ishmiel21 To me a meaningful choice changes fate, so to speak. Sure you can make a railroad where some choices affect, for example, which allies you recruit along the way, but that is like a choice of set-dressing for the inevitable "final battle". Even if your choices along the way influence which kingdom wins a war or something, the inescapable pull of that final showdown means you won't get to really interact with those consequences.
@@GreylanderTV A meaningful choice does not need to change "fate". I'm not even really sure what you're trying to get at. A meaningful choice is a meaningful choice. If a player finds the choice meaningful, then it is meaningful. A railroad gives you no meaningful choice. A linear adventure lets you make as many meaningful choices as you want.
@@ishmiel21 Chalk it up to brief, imprecise, and slightly poetic language. To take concrete example, the Tiamat campaign from 5e... predestined to the final battle to stop Tiamat. Unless you are going to utterly derail that railroad, player choices are not going to change that fate. If run as a component of a sandbox, GM would not consider it _necessary_ that the players end up at that final battle. Players could change their fate, do something else. And in a living world/sandbox, Tiamat might come through, and the world changes, and the PCs have to deal with life in that world. Maybe you can give an example of a choice you would consider meaningful within that context, but in which the players still linearly proceed to the end battle with Tiamat. What would be the distinction that makes this "linear" vs "railroad" in your view? In any event, my main point is that if you are righting with a particular sequence of encounters/events in mind, leading to a particular end battle, whether or not you call that "linear" it is very hard not to make it a railroad.
Players don't want *just* a railroad, they want a whole *rail network* and a freedom pass to ride it.
That is called a non-linear adventure. But yes, it is better than a sandbox.
Indeed
Yes, yes!
That's asking a lot of a GM and that's why a lot of GMs fail - trying to build an entire open world without any help from anyone else playing the game with them. All in the conceit that to do otherwise would ruin the surprise or break the immersion.
The majority of the games I've played in, and most of the games I've run, have a format that's more like "Here's a goal that's more complex than going to a location and killing a monster/retrieving an object, now figure out how to do it." Then the players pursue whatever comes into their heads, and the GM watches out for opportunities to drop in any helpful information, assistance, etc that they've already thought of or improvise anything useful that they think of on the way. It's sort of like a mystery-solving or heist-planning mindset applied to less mysterious tasks like "invade this bad guy's hideout" or "escort this person to their destination".
Yeah, my group could be considered "beer and pretzels" they love a defined conflict / goal, and planning out how to go about it with near total freedom. Tossing them into a megadungeon without much beside "get loot" left them pretty ambivalent.
Sounds like linear adventure style. Nothing wrong with that
When I'm a player I want a linear narrative story where my choices affect the outcome of it. The DM sets conflicts and has a good idea on what those conflicts are. This will create different paths based on the decisions that we (The party) made but will ultimately lead up to the climax that we created together with the DM. A good idea as a DM is generally asking what the party will want to do next session. I typically throw out a poll of rumors or events that pique their interest in what's happening in town and they decide they want to tackle it next session together.
Well said.
Indeed
I run my games like a cruise ship, you know where it's going but you have freedom to move around the ship, party, get into trouble and all sorts of wackyness but the ship keeps moving.
you can see sites at each destination and do things other people don't but at some point you gotta hop back on the ship.I would say the major arc in my games is a railroad but each port/destination is it's own minisandbox.
Interesting
I find this particular instance very interesting, because it sounds like we're talking about a video game. In video games you have a linear story whether it's a open world or not there is always a completion to the game. In sandboxes to me, there is no set completion to a game. I like the open world idea because yes there is an overarching thing happening, the players can and cannot do it if they wish. To me railroading has always meant you cannot deviate from my plan whether you do what I want you to do or not there is nothing else but what I have created, as a gym. Adventure paths tend to lean towards railroading because they don't give you any external things to play with, and I think a lot of people, especially those I meet now, only know how to GM using an adventure path and so everybody thinks that's how you're supposed to do it. I have literally been railroaded, where the GM was like no your character does this! But being a GM that does sandboxes where my players are like there's a story we're going to go over here, and I deal with it. Sometimes the story comes to them because if they ignore something that will just show up on their doorstep. They are adventures they are drawing a lot of attention to themselves the big dads are going to come visit and see if they're a problem.
For sure
Ty as always Daniel. I’ve realised about myself that I am tempted to railroad because I want to protect the PCs. Solution: rely on reaction tables. If monsters don’t always attack, then I can relax about the PCs making choices
For sure
This is what happens when players see the terrible examples of play on YT.
The GM is used to moving character with their narration (this is bad, GM's are supposed to only narrate NPC and environmental detail)
The players are not saying where they are going... as they are used to the GM moving them on their behalf.
So because of the above being the norm in 99% of RP, the players rely on the GM to move them around and describe their actions for them... Players therefore are just talking heads and die rollers.
I've been trying to de-program myself so I don't move or act on behalf of my players. (its a habit that can be hard to break). My players say where they are moving and what action they are doin or what their character says each turn/round. Once the players get into that habit, they realize THEY are in full control of their character, and they become pro-active in the game.
Thank you for bringing this up.
Interesting, I don’t watch many actual plays, but I can see what you are saying, D&D is a game we often learn by watching others play and habits can be learned that way for sure
First railroad vs. sandbox breakdown: Are players setting the goal? Second Breakdown: Are players free to attempt different strategies to achieve the goal? Third Breakdown: Are players free to decide individual actions/tactics to achieve the goal? Almost everyone lets players choose their actions/tactics, even in heavily railroaded campaigns. And lots of sandbox games may have a pre-defined goal, even if it's just "get treasure". I think it's the second question that largely determines for me if the game feels like a sandbox or a railroad.
Indeed
I tend to do the following: I present a linear adventure and softly real road my players into it. But if they do otherwise or show interest in something else I NEVER take away their agency. I would only do so if what they do totally kills the fun for me. If I dont give my players a direction at the beginning, its like Daniel said: they are LOST. Greetings from a German GM o7
Good point that everyone at the table should be having fun
Great points. I often use the tactic of predicting what my players will be engaged by to create more bespoke feeling content within the sandbox. I've heard the term "funnel-shaped sandbox" used to describe scenarios that culminate in a particular "moment" or "beat" that can be drastically different (or happen outside the players' notice entirely) depending on how the players interact with the situation. Although, I think "funnel" means something different in the OSR lexicon-something very deadly, IIRC. Anyway, kind of thing has worked for me to create dramatic moments within a sandbox and keep things interesting and engaging for my players.
I’ve found players often make their own funnel as they pursue something that interests them - they d tend to get more focused as the campaign moves on vs hitting every “side quest”
"Funnel-shaped sandbox" is a great term. I'm definitely stealing that to describe my next game.
Great way to think about it!
I've tried narrative-heavy campaigns and found the players tend to sit back and become more passive in the experience and it's more work to nudge them in the right direction while not forcing them that way. I've recently started building a sandbox-style campaign where the plan is to have a handful of adventure opportunities prepared when we start that i can drop hints about to the party and they then have something to go after to start with. Then, as they play, I'll create more opportunities and the sandbox will expand outward. That way, they have the option to do whatever they can think of, but still have specific locations and adventures to go on if they want to.
Nice
10:50 LOL I can't believe “quest boards” became a trope.
Indeed
What it comes down to is how everything blends together, because any campaign that's only one thing is going to be terrible. So you've got a campaign mode where the players get to wander the area you've created however they want, encountering the various adventure hooks you've put together and deciding which on they want to go after. But once they've picked a hook, they've locked into a specific end goal, and as you switch over to adventure mode you'll dial back most of the extemporaneous details and just focus on the one goal with it's much more limited number of approaches and options, which you can probably put a bit more thought and effort into.
I believe it is up to the players to lock in, not the Referee- all the choices don’t stop, because if they did then the locked in goal has no consequences
"Most players want options and direction"
I think you're absolutely right. I think it's really hard for players to start looking for adventures in an open "do whatever" sandbox, but if provided with just enough of a general goal to start exploring the world, knowing that any path could be taken, leading to more, and that they can "drop" their first direction/goal if they wish; I think they'll sandbox themselves eventually if it makes sense.
It's all about conversation too, we need to see how both GM and players can get what they're looking for in this particular game/sandbox.
For sure
What I found is that players don't mind being railroaded as long as they get to help build the railroad with their own input. In other words, you have five other potential storytellers at your table. Let them help you and then that strictly defined series of situations that looks like a railroad (and maybe is a railroad) is still a lot of fun for everyone, and much simpler to prepare for on the part of the GM.
Creating with friends is what I love about these games
This is absolutely true, I've experienced this myself. I designed a sandbox world but knowing that players often don't know what to do in a world when they start and they often don't care about the world yet, especially if they're new, I know I need to give them a push by plopping something right in front of them to do which also gets them invested in the world. Once they're done with that they can be more free to interact with the world as they please. I have some linear adventures around them for them to do if they want and they're always free to break off from that and do anything else. The hard part I think is making sure they're aware that they are free to deviate as I worry that they will sometimes grab a plot hook and just keep going to see the end even if they're no longer interested.
I envy that your players acknowledged that you don't care what they do, that is what I aspire to hear some day.
My current players only broke from what I had planned after the first dungeon, then they started following the quests inspired by their own character motivations and have yet to stop doing those aside from one player actively avoiding his.
Sounds like you have a great group
Excellent exposition outlining most of the possibilities and solutions. Thank you for your time and effort. Helen and Katarin in Zurich at present.
Thank You!
I agree with this completely. How much nudging players want or will tolerate varies, but I have had more players complain about lack of direction than railroading. In my experience, good DMs always have a flashing sign up saying, “This way lies adventure” (or even more than one such sign), but if the players choose to ignore those signs, he improvises instead of trying to stop them. There should be consequences, of course; Sauron will indeed conquer Gondor and start marching on Rohan if the Ring isn’t destroyed. But that’s good; it shows the players that their choices do indeed make a difference.
For sure
This video resonates with me very strongly. Create a world that gives players lots of options. Provide lots of hooks for things that they can do and get 'em started in the world with something that is pretty obvious and linear. I'm putting together a campaign setting and I'm thinking of using a fairly constrained opening set of scenes to establish the characters in the setting and set up some hooks, almost most like playing a video game cut scene or the intro to Skyrim. But my plan would be to clearly explain to the players what that initial half hour is going to be like so that they aren't surprised or disappointed about the lack of choice right at the beginning, during the setup period.
Good point at the end - having a conversation with the players about this type of thing is key to them understanding that the entire campaign will not be run that way.
Thoughtful video Daniel. I strive to run open sandbox worlds, but sometimes a couple of my players do need a little more guidance. It becomes a fine line of me trying to balance not dropping things on them vs not having them feel so lost with the lack of direction of things.
That makes sense
I think this is why I wouldn’t call my table’s game a sandbox; maybe it’s semi-linear, because the players are choosing what things to focus on, but I’m still setting up the overarching problems they’re encountering, and plot threads they’re following. I think that’s preferable for us, because we want to see a story progress over the course of a year or whatever, even if the path we take to get there isn’t what I as the DM expected it to look like.
Their main goal right now is to crash a wedding in the feywild to save a friend, after which they’ll follow some other threads or start a very-adapted version of Lost Mine of Phandelver’s plot. But they haven’t even made it to the feywild yet, because I started dropping hints about the Redbrands, an antagonist in that story, being in a nearby town. They ended up there and are plotting a rebellion against their occupation. Not the direction I expected, but still related to the overarching story track we’re following. I think that’s really cool, and a different experience from a proper sandbox, more appropriate for us.
That sounds super fun!
This is such a great video. As you say the key problem with sandbox adventures can be the lack of direction...especially at the start of the campaign.
Starting the players in a point of conflict where they're in danger and have to act is one of my favorites. Then having that immediately lead to a possible quest or be the start of a quest. I talk with new players before the session to make sure they're good with that kind of start.
I might have them come across the merchant while he's being robbed for example. If the merchant was being robbed by goblin bandits then after a fight the merchant might tell them the goblins are being led by a goblin king who has amassed wealth that he's using to hire more goblins to pillage and steal in the area and the mayor of the local town is offering a huge reward for the head of the goblin king etc. etc.
How would I choose the bandits being goblins and the villain being a goblin king? Character backstory. A couple of the characters might have a history with goblins. One might have had his family slain by goblins, another's mother was robbed by goblins on the way to the markets.
If their backstory is different the bandits and the villain would be different. If the players had a necromancer kill their family then the merchant might be holed up on the top of his wagon trying to escape zombies. I think in terms of "quest", "villain" and "minions". I have a random quest generator I use (so I don't care which quests the players choose to take up) and I tweak the villain and minions to the players' backstories. I might tweak the quest too.
As a campaign progresses at the end of each session, if a quest finished that session, I ask players what kind of thing they'd like to do next. They know I'm going to drop them in the middle of something the next session based on what they tell me they want to do. So they start already in the next adventure, in danger, having to act immediately.
This approach suits shorter sessions where you have less time and it can also suit West Marches style sessions where the players keep changing session to session because it's always exciting, dangerous and fast paced. You may think through keeping each quest or part of a quest down to one session in that situation.
Random quest generation works great solo or with just 2 players as well. Just roll up a random quest and tweak it based on your characters' stories so far.
So these quests ever connect together into a larger picture?
@@BanditsKeep Great question! Yes they do. Often the villain will escape or the characters will find out he's a minion for a much more dangerous villain or faction so if they choose to pursue it that can be part of a much larger adventure. Also I have random tables for "machinations" in the main cities the characters frequent (things that happen that the characters may or may not influence that show that the world is moving around them). At some point characters can't avoid the machinations any more (the city is under siege, at war, food has run out, they're accused of being traitors, the army or navy tries to forcibly recruit them etc.).
The key is that I'm not attached to what happens or who the characters pick a fight with. I just roll things up and use some imagination to connect the threads together in a way that makes sense. What happens in the larger world is a sandbox for me too which makes it fun.
Omg your merch looks amazing!! Finally found some stuff for my Christmas list.
Thank You!
I think that's where I screwed up my first true sandbox, I was not actively dropping enough questline hooks in a way that gave them real things to latch onto
I can understand that
I give my players a world to discover, with plothooks for "big" things to do scattered throughout. It seems to work.
Makes sense
Give me a good mix of the two and I'm a happy player.
Cool
14:04 "the logical outcome" I feel like it's a big thing when it comes to open world games, and it creates hooks for more adventures. Last game I played my players decided to investigate a robbery and some of them decided to hop from roof to roof to follow some trails, the town militia stopped them (because why would sketchy outsiders be running on the roof?), to summarize it all they defied the guard to the point of being arrested and nearly escaping the gallows.
right now they have to deal on how to free half the party from jail, and get on the militia's good side.
Oh man, fun!
One month we drove our DM crazy.
He had an adventure that he planned to run but one of the players couldn't make it the first weekend. So we followed up on some rumors and off our characters went. The next weekend we had our characters off on the rumor hunt and the missing character from last week was back at the town miles away with no clue where we had gotten off to because somebody forgot to leave him a note.
So the next weekend we finished our rumor quest and headed back to town only to find out that the character left behind started something that would take him a couple of weeks to finish. I'm not sure what it was but just another delay.
So the next weekend we are supposed to start the adventure but it just didn't mesh up with all the other things that we were sorting out. Our poor DM was getting a little upset with all our questions and dividing treasure, identifying magic items, etc.
At least we did start the adventure the next weekend.
Sometimes you just can't let the group get sidetracked by shiny things off in the distance.
If they game was going and the PCs adventuring, and everyone having fun, I’m not sure this is a bad thing.
@BanditsKeep we all had fun, it just drove the DM crazy trying to get his adventure started. We players seem to get sidetracked so easily. Oh look, shiny!
Ah the age old debate and conversation around railroading. I enjoyed your summation and thoughts on it. I always setup using the "node approach," which I guess is simply a flowchart. Essentially its a plot line with branching threads based on what choices the players make. There is always at least two choices and once the players choose one path, the other is gone forever (to be recycled for another adventure/campaign maybe). Outside of that I tend to lean toward your approach. I build a contained sandbox and have encounter charts on hand to roll on if the players decide to do something I didn't plan.
Cool
Excellent video. This is pretty much exactly what I try to do in a game but circumstances always seem to put up barriers. If you do this right, it has the potential to continue indefinitely.
I agree
I think framing is so important. The DM needs to be honest with the players and tell them what is the point of the game vs. what they have choice to do or not do. If you say "the point of the game is that you all are getting shipwrecked on a desert island and then you'll need to somehow survive and thrive" that's cool. But if you keep that a secret and then on the first session you force us all to go on a boat ride and then ignore any attempts we have to avoid a storm or skillfully sail back, and you force us to get shipwrecked, then it's a railroad. The same thing happened either way, but it kind of comes down to the DM just being honest about what is a choice and what isn't a choice.
I agree
I think you are spot on about your definitions. I think part of the problem is definitions. An example of a true railroad are the 1e Dragonlance adventurers - you don’t even get to pick your characters!
Indeed
To me, a railroad is not only where the DM forces a specific adventure, but where they force outcomes to situations. Basically, the DM as frustrated novelist. They came up with this great movie scene in their head, and now they want you to basically act it out. Of course, they thought you would enjoy it, too, but when you frustrate their vision, they react by restricting your choices.
I think it's acceptable to occasionally remove player agency, within limits. You just have to be very sparing and strategic about it. For instance, you could have an adventure which starts with the PCs suddenly at the _end_ of a dungeon with no idea how they got there, because someone read a cursed scroll that induced amnesia. And now they have to find their way out. I wouldn't do that very often, but it could be a fun experiment.
But once you set the scene, player agency reigns.
Some adventures are also written with certain scenes in mind and seemingly with the expectation that they must happen. This can make DMs think "oh, this is how adventures are written, so I should be doing that too!"
I don’t think the cursed scroll idea is a bad way to start a campaign, but I would be very hesitant to do something like that in the middle of one.
@@BanditsKeep Definitely...like I said, it should be done sparingly.
A railroad has stations where people on one train switch to others. Characters benefit from structure with periodic opportunities to change
Indeed
I think if my players could look 'behind the screen' and see my notes they'd accuse me of railroading. Except that the railroads are all things they have decided upon or are outcomes to choices they've already made. Their desires and decisions dictate how I create direction and narrative moving forward. There are always options and there's limitless room for me to improv things but usually they follow a path or series of paths that are semi-predetermined. They choose the road, I just make sure it's an interesting walk. If keeping things engaging means forcing certain outcomes in the background and without their knowledge, so be it. I have yet to run into a player that's seen through the veil.
Perhaps they do see, but don’t care.
Great video, i like getting my players to take charge and make their own way within the setting and campaign. However i do think you have alot of solid points and we all should take a few ideas from the other side. I do plan to start new players in a situation from the start to give them some direction and immediate situational clear paths. Aftewards its a west marches but i do think it will be wise to leave a job board ( crude stone monolith meeting place) with people offering jobs, to give some options if pcs are stuck on where they want to go
Cool
Despite a good deal of advice saying to not railroad, I've found a fair amount of players want just that. It's a trap. If you sandbox fully, you might find that player that gets lost. But if you railroad them, then they'll reject it simply because of its premise.
A balanced use is in generally in order.
On a side note, 1 of the best hooks I found was in the 1E DMs Guide where under certain instances, Treasure Maps are found instead of Treasure.
Treasure maps are great and I use them all the time
the sandbox campaigns one of the DMs around our table likes to set has just led to a lot of confusion on where to go and what we are supposed to do. lack of direction in a sandbox if its a campaign and there is a set goal but we have no idea how to achive it is very frustrating.
Seems a bit of direction is needed if the DM has some set goal for you. Perhaps an out game conversation to be sure expectations are clear?
There's a question of scope when defining a railroad. If I say "the goal of this campaign is to go to the Castle and Kill the Vampire within it" - I don't think that's a railroad if i'm honest with that goal up front and if the castle has multiple entrances many different levels with lots of rooms that are connected in different ways, multiple factions that could turn into enemies or allies against the vampire, etc. Sandboxes always have boarders, the question is just "how wide are those boarders?" We could do the same quest but there's only 1 way in and only 1 method to get it and each room only leads to 1 other room, etc so the challenges are pre-set and must be overcome in the "correct" order, etc. That would now be a railroad.
Sandboxes have borders - not mine.
Sandbox: Players choose *what* to do and *how* to do it. Typical adventure: Players do *what* a prepared adventure is about but have complete freedom about *how* to do it. Offensive railroad: Players don't choose *what* and they don't get to choose *how* either.
Indeed
I agree with you on player agency, but choice implies options to choose from, and that is then in my opinion more of a non-linear adventure (the kind of game I prefer to run, where I have deliberate dilemmas based on the theme I am going for). In a sandbox I would say the proper word would be problems, and thus the complete liberty to tackle those however one sees fit, which goes much further than a simple choice. But both are up to the player agency, and my approach is that I hope that the players care about the theme around which the fiction revolves. And I tell them outright before the game what theme I would like to explore, so that the players can make their characters who have some connection to that theme and thus can also explore the theme on their terms.
And the theme never changes?
@@BanditsKeep no, not within the campaign. Bur I prefer to run shorter campaigns anyway, since the open ended stuff is just as meaningless as Sandbox gaming. The characters hopefully manage to get an arc along the theme, just like in every other media and then we do a different champaign, with a new theme and new characters.
Daniel, the best game that elegantly avoids railroading and gets the most player buy in is Burning Wheel. Session zero - players and GM talk about what they want to play. What is the situation. Then they right Beliefs (goals) about the situation, personal ambitions, inter party desires, and get rewarded for initiating scenes that touch these Beliefs. You have to try it.
Cool, I will have to try BW some day, but I’ve always bounced off of it when I’ve explored the rules
I don't necessarily have a problem with railroading. I also don't think railroading and sandboxing are mutually exclusive. Probably not a lot of overlap, though. A lot of the style of play depends on the players. Some don't want to create the story, they want to be part of the story. Perfectly fair. Of course, some players are the opposite.
I suppose my personal philosophy would be to use a kind of railroading. Put the characters in a train station, and let them choose what train they want to get on. They can ride that train for as long as they want, and get off when it suits them. Of course, the characters may have limited choices, especially if they've jumped off the train while it's moving. It will be awfully difficult to find another way to their original destination if they got off the train. Not impossible, but tough. I guess what I mean is that there are consequences to getting off the train. Not necessarily bad, of course.
Thanks for the video, Daniel.
_"Some don't want to create the story, they want to be part of the story."_ I file this under "players don't really know what they want". Hold on, hear me out. I mean the players have never _seen_ what a good sandbox can be like. They may express discomfort when presented with "you can do anything", may wander aimlessly, and may ultimately even ask the GM to tell them what they are supposed to do -- but that is a result of not realizing what a sandbox can be like, and the GM not knowing how to present the sandbox in an engaging way. The players may also have been burned in the past by "not doing what the GM wanted". As a first step, the GM needs to help the players create motivations for the characters (session 0 stuff), and provide external motivations (survival and money[start them broke] are always good).
If they can get off at any time, I don’t think I’d call that a railroad. Seem like you offer adventure hooks and they follow what they want.
@@BanditsKeep Yeah, but if they want to conclude an adventure, they need to stay on the train. I know, it's a very hazy space I'm working in. :)
The goal is to enjoy your free time playing a game. I would say it needs to be entertaining regardless of the label one try’s to give to their DMing abilities.
Player agency over what? A notion they have a choice because your DM has three railroad options and not just one?
I think the labels I would use are good DM or bad DM. What makes a bad DM? If they are boring and no entertainment value. I don’t know if it matters if they are sandboxing boredom or railroading it.
That being said, Daniel sounds like a good GM and I agree with the majority of what he says and I listen to his channel for inspiration.
But this topic sounds like right fighting something that isn’t important. Why do I say that? Well I will give an example. I show up for my weekly D&D game. The DM prepared a one shot for the evening or an adventure out of an old dungeon magazine. A complete railroad as some people like to label it. After the game all that matters was if everyone had a good time. Call it a linear adventure if it helps you sleep at night.
This topic and the people using these terms come across like gamer snobs.
Well maybe your so called sandbox otherwise known as nothing planned, no goals, no direction and most likely boring isn’t all that you thinks it’s cracked up to be.
I don’t get the impression Daniel really plays a so called sandbox.
Thanks for your input. I agree, enjoyment of the group is my goal, as both player and referee. Not sure why you think I don’t run a sandbox, or why you feel that means no prep, but that is a great topic to discuss. Thanks!
@@BanditsKeep I can’t claim you do or don’t run a sand box. I was getting at the terms (labels) are meaningless at least to me.
If a DM creates a dungeon and all the traps and encounters while providing the hook to go to the dungeon. Is that railroading? If that DM’s players say they want to play in a forest instead is that now a sandbox?
I find it difficult as player and particularly as a dm to play/run a 'pure' sandbox games. Too many choises and as dm too much to prepare, which I have to because I lack improvising skills. So, what I am trying to do to avoid 'pure' railroading is to find a story I am sure some of my players love; OR what I have lately trying is to ask my players what they want to do in my campaign based on the overall story. I have created some super villains and plothooks, they can chose, but I always ask if they want to do something different. It is new and difficult for them to chose, because they played mostly that what the dm has prepared for them. In addition, they get downtime to build a stronghold, creating buisness etc., create magic items etc., but there is not much comming from them either. However, I don't give up and try different angles to motivate them to make decisions. I listen to a lot of your videos lately to get more ideas of how to encourage my players to do that.
It can take a while to get into a good back and forth rhythm with players so the sandbox has stories that you all build together
A lot of people don't get this small fact. Running a specific scenario to defeat a BBEG or find a macguffin isn't a railroad... That's an objective. That's The Game.
A railroad is telling a player that their great ideas won't work because the DM wants them to do it a different way. Players figure out a great and novel plan to break into the BBEG's keep without being seen? The DM actively doesn't want that. The DM doesn't care what the dice read. The player characters are seen anyway and a huge battle ensues because that's what the DM wants. That's a railroad. Your choices don't matter. That isn't a part of the objective. That isn't a part of the game. That's a DM taking player choices in the moment away and puppeteering the outcome because they want things to happen "their way".
Indeed
Not a railroad, but at least a road.
Your example. You enter a village what do you do? Uhhhhh
Proprer example. You enter the village and stop at the tavern to get an idea whats going on. You find out the most exciting rumor is that the swamp lizardmen have gotten more aggressive due to some mystic artifact they recently put in their swamp temple. Unfortunatly no one has been ale to look into it as the local law is hamstring by its leader going missing and a series of robberies in town. This has led to the local goblins commiting more raids on he local farmers than usual. You also find leads on a couple of places you can spend the night. What do you do?
Exactly
Really nice topic! I do exactly the same thing as you do
Awesome
Gotta keep the sandbox from becoming a cat-box
Not sure I follow you
those shirts do look quite cool...
Thank You!
Love the videos, my favourite rpg philosophy channel!
I wanted to buy a shirt, but the link doesn’t work for me.
Can i get them in EU?
Thank You!
Let me check on the shirts in the EU
Try this link - it is an amazon affiliate "one link" that should send you to the product in your country - amzn.to/3S5FPCD - they are available in Germany, France, UK for sure
Players don’t want railroads (usually) but they often want regular roads
Indeed
Lol sorry Daniel. I dunno an easy way to call in for monsters and treasure but just wanted to let you know it’s wild to hear the 5e community mindset to try and justify lying to players and saying the Old School referee who is trying to be fair and impartial is “fudging” by not rolling on trivial time wasting situations. I don’t know how you keep your cool sometimes lol. Love the show. I like the heated debates. Wish we had a Bandits Hex cast too though to get some Todd agreement vibes to ying and Yang the sentiments :). I’m with you all the way. No screens for me, no fudge. Telegraph, telegraph, telegraph, let the dice fall. Great things come of it.
I do enjoy a heated debate. I’m always taking to Todd, we just never record it 😂
In my experience, players want both. A railroad with lots of rail stations.
What happens at the stations?
@@BanditsKeep sandboxes
I have one player that I think wants to be railroaded. He'll ask me between sessions if they're getting near the end of the campaign. The times I've played with him as a DM I felt railroaded, so I'm guessing this is either his preference or the only way he knows.
Interesting.
All I know is what I want. And half of the time it turns out that I don’t know what that is either…
😂
Redheads, my players care about redheads. Granted the two Irish brothers in the group are redheads but we’re talking about the feminine persuasion. My experience is tumultuous but I love them too. 😂
I run my games like yours. I find quest givers come in various forms. Though I could share many, the one I am writing for our next session is not so much a “quest giver” but an invitation for coffee from the “Bond Villain”!
As with all initial direct confrontations with them, it’s really a fact finding mission of how much Bond knows. Teasers that propel the narrative forward and building tension between them.
Let’s see where it goes! I’ll keep you informed!
Cool
Today’s session the players’ characters were so willing to help the “Big Bad Bond Villain” that they offered ideas and didn’t even seek negotiating “What’s in it for me” terms! The villain steered them away from their objectives by replacing them with a far greater threat to him, which he painted in such a way that it would threaten everyone! This took some deep consideration as to whether the villain was actually willing to lose good lieutenants to rid himself of these mercenaries (the party) who, up to this point, had been able to best his plans effortlessly. So, if you can’t beat them, ask them to join you! Give them what they want! Give them an opportunity, an objective, that will allow them to prove their muscle! So now the villain has become their new quest giver! They have a new patron and he has new lieutenants! 😂 Mew ha hahaha!!!!
Great video.
Thank You!
Possibly those players that want to be railroaded are used to play graphic adventure videogames such as those from LucasArts where you play discoverying what's correct to advance the game, as designed by the makers of the game.
However, a sandbox has not a pre-designed story to discover by clicking on the correct items.
It's more like actually "living" that situation and being able to do anything you can plausibly do. And that's beyond the scope of the narrow-minded players coming from videogames.
Now, let's watch the whole video :)
Not being a video gamer myself, but having some friends that are, I could see this style influencing there thoughts on the game
The answer is yes. Yes they do.
i agree players are stupid
No, no i dont
I would disagree.
@@BanditsKeepThe actual answer would have been: “The answer is yes for some players.” But that wasn’t as much fun to write. My players actually asked for a more linear adventure after my sandbox ended. They spent too much time deciding what to do and talking about things. And, of course, even if we play something more railroady, like a prewritten adventure module, they’re always free to do whatever they like. So it was kind of a troll answer, simply to point out that SOME players actually prefer less choice, something that surprised me to be honest 😂 Your channel is great by the way 👍👏😁
I absolutely hate being railroaded. I've not met many players who like to have agency removed.
They don't want to 'feel' like they're railroaded.
What is the difference between feeling and being railroaded?
There's a Matt Chill (sp?) video where he describes the difference between a sandbox and a linear adventure in terms of The Hobbit vs. Lord of the Rings. Great minds think alike, I'm just not sure who told Matt )
Nice
Yeah, I've seen railroading defined as everything from a pre-conceived story and outcome that the DM wants the players to ennact, to any amount of structure or planning whatsoever. I prefer your far more nuanced definition!
I do think certain terms have a range of meanings depending on who you talk to, thus I felt my definition would help make clear my position
"railroad vs sandbox" debates often overlook that fun comes from meaningful choices. players need both freedom and purpose. An infinite-choices-of-no-real-value sandbox has the same problem of meaninglessness as a no-choices-at-all railroad. "players want a railroad" is better put as "players want a purpose", not "players don't want choices". Players want freedom, but they also want to know what to do with it.
Can they not create (or find purpose) in a sandbox?
When I first considered the difference between Linear and Sandbox adventure styles, I genuinely couldn't see how anyone would ever want a linear adventure. To me, a linear adventure is just a terrible novel or movie. If you want a linear adventure, why in the world are you playing a tabletop RPG? However, when I began to actually run games, I was flabbergasted by the players. For some people, being rail-roaded is exactly what they want. They could not care less about exploration.
There are many different play styles that is for sure
I used those terms a little differently, since I take actions having natural consequence in the world as something that should go without says. I usually say I create small sandboxes. Generally, I go for open-ended campaigns I make up as we go; they usually want to play whatever I prepared because it will be much more interesting than random encounters and what I can make up on the fly.
Makes sense
Linear games are railroads and open world are sandboxes. These are just synonymous terms.
I disagree
@@BanditsKeep Words have meanings. Linear v open world are terms used in video games, railroad v sandbox are typically used in ttrpgs. Different hobbies, same idea.
I've never had a train run on me and I strongly suspect I would object loudly to such a thing.
Phrasing!
As would I
How do I super like something on RUclips?
😊
So basically, it's not railroading, if it's presented as something the PLAYERS want to do- not what the CHARACTERS should want to do. So let's just take rp out of the game. Let the PLAYERS go where they want, do what they want and say what they want. That's true sandbox player agency!
Players play characters that represent parts of themselves.
@@BanditsKeep I agree. It was being a bit sarcastic, reflecting some of the all-or-nothing comments I've seen out there. Great topic!
There are absolutely players who want a railroad. I have one group I play with who's approach to the game is very casual -- they just want to kick back, slay some orcs, get some loot, and not have to think too hard. If I try to get them to set goals or decide the direction of the game, they just get annoyed: "Dude, just tell us where the dungeon is." They do enjoy planning out their battle strategy, but any "agency" beyond that is simply of no interest.
As a player, I'll admit I tend to prefer more direction rather than less. My experiences with "sandboxes" has not been great. Either the group can't agree on which direction to pursue, and wastes a lot of time arguing about it, or the DM is so coy and stingy with information that we can't even figure out what our options are (Yes, I have literally had DMs drop us into the middle of a town and say "Do what you want" with no further prompts or hooks). Maybe there are DMs out there who can make sandboxes that are engaging and delightful, but I'm not one of them, and I've personally never met one.
“Show us where the dungeon is” sounds like they players are making a choice - they want to do dungeon raids, not get involved in larger plots.
I have spoken in depth to a few players for whom their enjoyment as an audience member of the game's performance is more important to them than their control of that performance as a participant. These people are all pretty pro-illusionism
Cool
Players don't want a railroad, they want a GM who knows how run a sandbox.
I want a living world to interact with. A world of simple setting where you just run from point A to B and is simply setting heavy gets pretty boring. Problem is players thinking the DM playing out consequences to their interaction with the world is some sort of railroading.
@@edackley8595 Players who think _consequences_ mean "railroad" need education.
Indeed
"Linear" is pretty much inherently a railroad. If there is a predetermined destination, then any "choices" the players make border on meaningless.
That doesn't seem to be totally true. A railroad means the players get to make no meaningful choices. In a linear adventure, players can make all kinds of choices that can change things, though the big bad reaimins the same.
@@ishmiel21 To me a meaningful choice changes fate, so to speak. Sure you can make a railroad where some choices affect, for example, which allies you recruit along the way, but that is like a choice of set-dressing for the inevitable "final battle". Even if your choices along the way influence which kingdom wins a war or something, the inescapable pull of that final showdown means you won't get to really interact with those consequences.
@@GreylanderTV A meaningful choice does not need to change "fate". I'm not even really sure what you're trying to get at. A meaningful choice is a meaningful choice. If a player finds the choice meaningful, then it is meaningful. A railroad gives you no meaningful choice. A linear adventure lets you make as many meaningful choices as you want.
@@ishmiel21 Chalk it up to brief, imprecise, and slightly poetic language. To take concrete example, the Tiamat campaign from 5e... predestined to the final battle to stop Tiamat. Unless you are going to utterly derail that railroad, player choices are not going to change that fate. If run as a component of a sandbox, GM would not consider it _necessary_ that the players end up at that final battle. Players could change their fate, do something else. And in a living world/sandbox, Tiamat might come through, and the world changes, and the PCs have to deal with life in that world.
Maybe you can give an example of a choice you would consider meaningful within that context, but in which the players still linearly proceed to the end battle with Tiamat. What would be the distinction that makes this "linear" vs "railroad" in your view?
In any event, my main point is that if you are righting with a particular sequence of encounters/events in mind, leading to a particular end battle, whether or not you call that "linear" it is very hard not to make it a railroad.
I would disagree with “destination”. If there is a pre determined outcome then I agree
The simple answer to your question is no. No they do not.
Indeed